E. T. Jaynes

I just read a very interesting book by E. T. Jaynes called Probability Theory: The Logic of Science. He doesn't rely on Kolmogorov measure-theoretic foundations, and instead attempts to construct probability theory from Aristotlean logic. He is, of course, a Bayesian - though quite different from what your standard frequentist professor would have you believe. And his tome written over some 30 year period (published posthumously), is a very heartfelt textbook - you can actually feel his soul in it (whatever that means for an experimental physicist). I'm not really going to go into it in any depth here about the concepts he puts forth. But I'll say this. Agree or disagree with it - it is definitely an interesting read.

Corn in Everything: Pizza Hut Crusts

For years I used to wonder why Pizza Hut had, by far, the best crust of any pizza place. I thought it had a lot to do with the way they would "fry" their crust, to get it that delicious bottom. It turns out, the answer is coarse corn meal. The trick is, they coat their pan with some olive oil and then generously coat it with coarse corn meal. I have still yet to taste a crust better than theirs.

Changes

My thoughts on the 5 rule changes.

1. The current clear path rule says that when a player is intentionally fouled on a breakaway, he gets one shot plus his team gets the ball. The change: the player would now get two foul shots and then possession of the ball.
I'm not a huge fan of this one. Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of changes for no reason. Each change makes it a lot harder to compare between eras, so it seems to me that we ought to not make changes unless they are necessary. I don't really see why this is necessary.

2. When a player is elbowed, hit, punched, or anyway assaulted by someone committing a category II flagrant foul and cannot attempt his foul shots, one of the other teammates on the floor can take them for him. The current rules allows the team committing the foul to pick any player, including those on the bench, to shoot the shots.
This is a good change. It is one of two changes I would like regarding violent fouls. The other is a minimum 15 game suspension. Otherwise, incentives are kind of skewed in a disgusting way - not enough deterrence for violence on the court. Kobe should have been suspended for 7 or 8 times the length he was for fucking up Mike Miller's trachea.

3. Players not lined up on between the blocks cannot stand beneath the free throw line (extended) during foul shots.
You know, we play IM games and even p.e. games with this rule. I always wondered why the NBA didn't follow suit. It's a good rule.

4. Currently, if the shot clock runs out mid shot, they have to take it out of bounds to the opposing team. But the change allows the opposing team to catch the rebound and run. If the violating team catches the ball, then it goes out of bounds.
Stupid change. Half the time it goes out of bounds anyway. It is a little confusing and unnecessary.

5. Unlimited substitutions during 20 second timeouts.
Good.

Jumpman 23

I really like the new Jordan ad. You have to go inside and click on the basketball and pair of legs. Then click watch. I really wonder how many takes it took them to get all those shots.

Chris Broussard's Why Nash is MVP

From Chris Broussard's Blog:

"I know it's hard, brothas. After all, this is our sport. It's one of the few areas of society that we dominate. Hip-hop, football, basketball and boxing (though Hispanics are coming on strong). They're ours, and we ain't trying to give them up.

But y'all have to look past that. You have to put your racial pride aside, ignore the sociological implications of this, and be honest: Steve Nash I'm hearing Kobe, I'm hearing Chauncey, I'm hearing Elton Brand, LeBron and Dirk Nowitzki. But it's really a no-brainer. It's really not even close. Nash deserves it again. I know this is a phrase usually reserved for brothas, but "that boy is bad.''

I firmly believe you could put Nash on any team in the league and he would turn them into a playoff contender. Not to slight Shawn Marion, but the way Nash has kept Phoenix not only afloat but elite, without Amare Stoudemire, is downright amazing. Two more years like this and Nash will be a Hall of Famer. Some might even argue that he is already. In winning last year's MVP, he became only the third "small'' point guard to win the award, joining Bob Cousy ('57) and Allen Iverson ('01). Isiah, Stockton, Tiny Archibald, Walt Frazier, Lenny Wilkens, Jason Kidd and Gary Payton have a combined zero MVP awards, and here Nash is working on his second. Only two other point guards in league history -- Magic and Oscar -- have been named MVP.

A week or so ago, I thought Kobe was beginning to eclipse Nash. His 81 was obviously magnificent, and when he led the Lakers to a 9-4 record by averaging 43.4 points in January, he had to garner serious consideration. But as with all players, Kobe's candidacy comes down to wins and losses, at least in my opinion. If the Lakers, who had lost five of six before beating Houston on Wednesday night, don't win at a much better than .500 clip, Kobe can't be MVP, certainly not with Nash pushing Phoenix to victory in 65 percent of its games. If Kobe goes on another otherworldly tear and it leads to Laker wins, Nash has real competition.

But otherwise, brothas need to give the white guy his props. And his award. is the MVP."

I've gotta say, that makes sense.

Guards and the Inflation Effect

Jordan and Pippen's last year together, the total number of 40 or more points in a game performances by all players in the league was, well, 37. Last year, it was 67. This year, as of about a week ago, half-way through the season, guess what the number is? 54. No kidding. 54. And yes, Kobe is on a scoring binge, but let's not forget that Jordan averaged over 37 one year (Kobe is still about 2 points under that per game) and yet that year there weren't so many 40+ point games.

The consensus (Pippen, Wilbon and Tony K, Hollinger, whomever really who follows basketball) on why this is happening seems to be the following:
1) You can't hand check guards on the perimeter. You can't as much as touch a guy at the perimeter. This makes defense on guards much tougher to play, giving them an advantage over past years.

2) More fouls called. It kind of goes with 1, but it kind of is independent. All sorts of fouls are being called right and left. To illustrate this fact, John Hollinger chronicled the foul shot rate as being the key reason for inflating scoring this year. This also means that penetrating guards are advantaged, because they are likely to go to the stripe, and since guards shoot better than bigs, you see more offenses running these types to take advantage of the foul flurry.

3) A decline in the quality of big men. There are some snazy power forwards in the league now, but there were some back in the day too. But take a look at the center spot. About a decade and a half ago, you had: Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, Shaquille O'Neal, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutombo at the center. Now who do you have? Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Brad Miller, Ben Wallace, Chris Kaman, Marcus Camby, Yao Ming, and of course an old Shaq and a post-operative Alonzo Mourning. Ok ok. If Amare wasn't broken throw him in too. I think the only reasonable comparison in that whole group is Dikembe Mutombo with Ben Wallace, though Mutombo was easily a much better offensive player. And I guess Amare with Shaq - (btw this isn't complementary. It is because, in the early 90s, Shaq was the worst defensive center on that list, and all the others, except for Dikembe, could average 27 a night but were also good at defense). Why do we care? Honestly, because big men are relevant - to winning, to punishing guards, etc. Or at least they were. Now you have a depreciated quality of men guarding the paint against (arguably) a better crop of overall guards in the league - you see where I'm going with this?

So combine 1), 2), and 3) and you get a formula for high scoring nights for guards. Really really high scoring nights. On pace to double last year's (already inflated) number of 40+ point games. Just important to remember things like this to contextualize things - that way we don't go over-exaggerating the meaning of some of these scoring binges.

Paul Pierce Makes a Funny

So my dislike of Paul Pierce as a player is no secret.

In a late November's Boston Globe, Paul Pierce said the following:
''I don't know why I'm not on the All-Defensive team every year. I think I'm a pretty good defender. The only reason I'm not on the All-Defensive team year in and year out is because I don't have a top-five shot blocker on my team. If you look at all the top perimeter defenders in the league, they all have top-five shot blockers in the league (on their team).

Kobe (Bryant) fell out of first team All-Defensive when Shaq got traded last year. Think about it. Every team that has an All-Defensive team wing player has a shot blocker on their team. I think that's the only thing that's holding me back. Even Tayshaun Prince. I don't think he plays great defense. He has two of the best shot blockers in the game (Ben Wallace and Rasheed Wallace). If a guy blows by you, then the shot blockers block the shot; and you call that great defense."

Well, for me, part of the irony is that I partly didn't like him because he is lazy on defense. Now why do I dislike him even more because of that? Because he is right. He is a talented defender. And having a legit shot blocker helps your perimeter defense. And, he is actually a better on the ball defender - and definitely a better team defender - than someone like - say - Kobe Bryant.