People Get Ready
Exhibit A: What the fuck is going on in that picture? I'll tell you what's going on—the only possible thing that explains this, Exhibit B:
(Both of these images were originally 666px long!!!!!)
The per-48s for that, if you're wondering, would be 39 points, 7 for 35 from the floor, 21 for 35 from the line, 25 boards, and 3.5 blocks. But he'd probably foul out first. I also didn't think you could be labeled a "point forward" if you had the spirit of an evil point guard.
This makes me feel vaguely bad about watching no ball all weekend, as does that Warriors/Grizz game that turned into a game between ten shooting guards. Though I like to think I was there in spirit, and maybe even contributed to it a little.
Labels: anthony randolph, stats, style, warriors
posted by Bethlehem Shoals @ 11/10/2008 02:27:00 AM
20 comments
20 Comments:
Shoals up in the wee hours, eh? Anthony Randolph invades insomniac's row, too FD to wait 'til daylight. By the way, how's this idea: the "How FD is my game?" utility/checklist for the Rec League/Pickup/Driveway player - learn, if your talent level were multiplied by 10-100x, how much love you'd get from Shoals & Crew. not sure about your game? Ask a friend! Find out which of the guys or gals at the park plays the most like Gerald Wallace! I'm a Jekyll&Hyde split persona - stat freak and lover of uninhibited hoops expressionism, and I need to get data out of abstractions for my purposes!(Maybe it's in the book already...been waiting many long time for it...drools a little) I suppose if one really deeply understood FD-ness or had been "in" since the beginning, one would know whether the 5' Mexican at the community center with the killer mid-range J and non-stop hustle was a hoops artist or a blacktop accountant, so maybe I'm exposing myself as a (long-winded) poseur?
I see Jamario Moon as a possible FD guy, and word is out that the Raps may be looking to upgrade from somewhat FreeDarko (JMoon) to full on FreeDarko (GWallace or Al Harrington).
I think this would be a non issue if Bargani could put it together. Because he can't does this make him more FreeDarko than the previously mentioned players. Or is Gerald Wallace currently the poster boy?
If Tony Allen of the Celtics isn't treading FreeDarko waters yet he should be...he is looking most excellent and banking on his pre season words when he basically said he wa better than James Posey.
As I watched both Anthony Randolph and Darko on the floor (at least until Darko got a double-T and tossed from the game) at the same time I thought Shoals had to be watching this.
Nellie has given up on his seven man rotation for now. We should see a lot of Randolph on the floor.
Could someone explain to me the fascination you all have with losing players? Seriously. Like if you put this guy, Gerald Wallace, Iverson, Stephen Jackson, and Josh Smith together, you'd have a 34-48 team. It'd be like if I were a track fan and my favorite runners weren't the fastest ones, but the guys who swaggeringly loped to fourth-place finishes. Basketball is like number theory. The good proofs are the ones that are right. Doing so in a concise or pretty manner is a plus. You don't get style points if your argument's wrong. When I watch a Grizzlies game, I'm entertained by Gay and Mayo, but only because I know that their efficient play is building the foundation of a winner. Same with the Warriors and Biedrins. He's the only thing keeping them from never winning a game all season.
This comment has been removed by the author.
tray...
i understand your comment, it took me a while to get the idea of FD(and i am by no means an authoritarian voice on what is/isn't FD) but you're lacking the basic undestanding of the site. i would hightly reccommend getting the book and devouring it, then you'll get why we root for the players/teams that we do.
sidenote - i have been able to get zero work done today, in aticipation that my book is out for delivery and could arrive any moment.
My take on Freedarko was always this: imagine a player making an awesome move or pass in a game but the ball doesn't go in the basket. Does that honestly make the play any less special when you really think about it? It's like, remember Greg Oden's monster almost-dunk in (i think) the final four? That dunk would have been in the highlight reels for ages, but instead it was discarded with the daily Top 10's. Oden missing that dunk was freedarko, to me at least. Cause i still appreciate the magnitude of that dunk even though it doesn't count to most people.
Efficiency has its place, mainly in gambling. If you just watch a sport to see the results, then i think you're missing something else.
Haven't commented in a while, but I'm really really trying hard not to think about something else. So Tray, sorry, but here goes. I don't think I'm what you'd call a fanboy of this site, either. On the one hand, I have on of the shirts. On the other, occasionally the stuff on here makes me want to puke and dynamite my own head.
That said, first of all, unless you had a terrible (and I mean terrible) 5-9, any team that started AI, Stephen Jackson, Gerald Wallace, and Josh Smith would win more than 34 fucking games in this league. Seriously man, you always talk about the Right Way, then you want to hate on a potential lineup that includes three wonderful defenders?
And yes, I'm intentionally ignoring A.Rand. because a) he's a 19 year old rookie for god's sake, your hating in him isn't exactly revolutionary and b) I'm not as enamored with him as some around these parts are.
The preceding, though is the smaller part of my objection to your comment. You say "Basketball is like number theory. The good proofs are the ones that are right." Who fucking says? Yeah, the team that scores more points is the technical winner, but the difference between basketball and math is that one is pure truth and the other is PURE TRUTH, if you get what I'm saying. Math takes place in another realm - we as people just figure it out. Basketball, on the other hand, is ours. We get to define what we think is relevant, meaningful, and beautiful about the game. Some people think that means getting to the gym at 5 am every day and busting your ass shooting free throws is what that means. Others, like many of us around here, think it means playing the game and living in the league in a creative, expressive, risky manner that is ultimately YOURS. I'm not saying either way is right or wrong; what I am saying, though (despite the fact I'm one of the only people I know who thought the Spurs were fun to watch two years ago (because they seemed to be the basketball equivalent of "Swagger Like Us," only with a French guy as the producer) is if you recognize the way people like their basketball on this site and can't think of anything to do here other than bitch, then bugger off, all right? This fucking world is hard enough as is.
I have trouble believing you have watched a Grizzlies game this year if you describe Mayo and Gay as "efficient" tray... While Iverson, Smoove, Crash and Captain Jack may get a little reckless at times, at least they do so by looking truly breathtaking plays in the eyes and occasionally finding themselves overmatched, instead of just being selfish and careless like Mayo and Gay have been this season.
As far as Randolph goes, seeing him rip up a couple of summer league games as a seven foot dude (who MIGHT weigh 180 pounds) popping off Iverson moves was all I needed. He is either going to be a transcendent talent that revolutionizes the game, or a perennial black sheep that only Don Nelson is willing to shepherd. And I guess there is a third option, that he adds 50 pounds to his frame, develops a traditional skill set and becomes an above average but highly forgettable power forward... but I try not to think about that because it makes me sad.
i love free darko
i love free darko players.
why no talk about my hawks this season?
5-0 bitches
I'm always wary of the “right way vs. FD” debate, and so at the risk of accidentally joining it, I wanted instead to come to the defense of number theory.
Number theory is far from a cold rational look at complicated phenomena intending to elicit truth from an overwhelming mass of data. Maybe the most famous solution in number theory’s history involved proving an incredibly simple statement (no integer solution exists for a,b,c,n for a^n +b^n =c^n for n>2) by using unimaginably complicated geometry in a universe that only exists in M.C. Escher paintings.
You can have no expectations when you see a Josh Smith running down the floor on a break. Just knowing that two points followed his action completely derives you of the experience of what just transpired. We all learned that the sum of the digits of any number divisible by three is also divisible by three, but a true proof requires that you start by seeing the numbers on analog clocks. Both examples are in some ways elegantly superfluous, at their best when they require an unexpected approach to reach a mundane conclusion. Box scores are the posit; the game is the proof.
I’m also going to pretend that I didn’t just break a year long silence on this site with a comment that basically said, "Basketball IS like number theory, and number theory fucking rules!"
just got my pre-ordered macrophenomenal almanac, so f-ing good i'm gonna be up for days trying to finish it. fantastic work FD
Well I just stumbled across this site last week in my normal NBA info-grab to start the season and could not me any happier that a place like this exists. I too like to look at most ballers with an entertainment/snarky view and love that discussions can be had over the game-changing ability of Anothony Randolph/Jason Thompson.
I also am glad to have found a community that sees G Dub for the God that he is. Now lets just see which system he is playing in next week.
Ordered a Gerald Tee and am picking up a copy of the Almanac ASAP. Can't wait!
I'd hesitate to call Jamario Moon FD. While I'm no authority on FD-ness I've taken to mean a player whose potential is astronomic though (sometimes) overwhelmingly unreachable, and flat-out someone who fills up stats in an unconventional manner (ie. Anthony Randolph's line), amongst other things.
Last season Moon was a pleasant surprise for the Raps, but he never came in with loads of potential. In retrospect I think he's already exhausted that potential.
The flat-out entertainment value of his game is still there in the dunks/blocks but never has become the essence of his game. Which I think is hustle and/or inconsistency.
But yeah, he sorta scratches the surface of FD, or what I take that to mean.
b shoals your book is FREAKING AMAZING! thank you for its awesomeness. especially your gwallace jsmith chapter!
i enjoy the fact that none of this site's principals have to defend their positions any longer. any number will courageously fight instead.
viva la revolution or something.
Time-out. Prior to the Celtics season last year, there were any number of pundits willing to openly state that the big three could never co-exist.
I agree that the game is a team sport and the great thing about the NBA is that you can enjoy the play of a losing team, but not every TEAM is going to win.
Paul Pierce was a different player in that he played D for the first time in years. Course I would never call a guy like Steve Nash a loser or AI because they have looked the gaints in the eye and performed well...but at what point do guys like Dirk or TMAC become losers?
The blurry hand entering the frame on the right suggests tenacious on ball pressure and the position of dribbler's legs and right hand suggest that he's about to execute a defensive right-left behind the back crossover to counter said pressure. Simple, really.
It's what would red think you should do. That's what Paul Pierce thinks. That's why he's the best. And why Isiah threw the ball to Larry, and why the Celtics are the dynasty.
Looks like a fundamental jump stop to me. SLAMonline predicted him as the "Rookie who will most likely fade into obscurity." Any doubters?
Post a Comment
<< Home