What a Messed Up Way to Win!

By -
J.J. Adande writes: "But those were teams that were better defensively, not as dependent on simply outscoring their opponents."

The Lakers of old were so good defensively that they could score fewer points than their opponents and still win. But these slackadaisical Lakers of today actually need to outscore their opponents before they record a victory.

Comments

  1. Jason B11:07 PM

    Pretty solid pick up there, Gene. Although, I must also admit, it is fairly common vernacular, at least from my fan based experience, to hear basketball analysts or commentators make that particular statement. Replace "dependent" with "focused", and it should make more sense. You'll hear the same statement in hockey dialogues as well, sometimes.

    What's funny about those older Lakers teams with Shaq was that Phil Jackson's defensive strategy was, "just figure it out". He let those guys have complete defensive rein. I heard him say that particular quote this week. My jaw dropped when I heard him say that.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more