Nike Kyrie 1 “All-Star” image leaked
January 20, 2015Browns interested in Frank Cignetti and Marty Mornhinweg for offensive coordinator
January 21, 2015
Happy day of humping, ladies and gents. What’s that? Oh—hump day, they call it. Because it’s the middle of the week? And a hump is in the middle of a camel’s back? My mistake. I thought something was amiss when Marcia at the office spoke so crudely. Very unlike her; spooked me a bit. I was ready to call HR and everything.
Oh boy, we’re off track already. Grab some coffee, and let’s get into it.
Great Minds and the Three-Point Stripe
With no offense meant to Jacob Rosen, our resident expert on such things, I occasionally find myself at odds with the statistical revolution that has swept basketball. Advanced metrics and formula-heavy figures are not always easily deciphered, and it can be frustrating trying to figure out the merits and meanings of each. Get out of my game, nerds, I want to scream, let me enjoy this!
I jest. Numbers are not the be-all end-all of understanding sports, but they can help confirm or deny what we see, and shed light on players and phenomena that were previously overlooked, like the value of corner threes and John Wall’s ability to generate them for his teammates.
It is widely known that today’s basketball strategy is geared toward generating layups and threes, as those shots have been proven to be the most efficient way of scoring, but it’s easy to forget that this is relatively new. Not so long ago, Pat Riley’s Knicks and teams of their ilk were built around playing football on hardwood, and some still considered shooting threes gimmicky.
The upside of data’s ever-growing importance in the NBA, and in sport in general, is that it has attracted thinkers. Those who may not have been interested in the game otherwise now have a reason to be, and those who are both book- and hoops-smart have a more nuanced means to present their thoughts. Basketball is no longer reserved for prickly old men who have spent a lifetime in sweat socks and believe all you need to win is grit. You’re allowed to think and stuff.
But again, stats are not always understood, and thus we need people who can make sense of them and explain them well. To wit, I share some work by two of my favorite basketball writers, both of whom work for Grantland: Zach Lowe and Kirk Goldsberry.
Goldsberry is, per his personal website, “a professor1 and writer specializing in spatial reasoning, visual communication, and representation.” He turns basketball into cartography, mapping out shot locations and showing how efficiently players score in different areas. You may have seen some of his shot charts, like this one showing where and how LeBron shot last year:2
It’s a digestible graphic packed with information. We see how often LeBron shoots from certain spots, as shown by the size of Goldsberry’s beloved hexagons. We see how well James shoots compared to league average based on a simple color scheme. The author highlights noteworthy areas. Goldsberry employs graphics like this for most of his discussions, all of which are fantastic. Recently, he has shown how Portland’s Damian Lillard and Golden State’s Draymond Green have improved since last season.
Goldsberry recently wrote about why James Harden is a perfect fit in Houston’s “Moreyball”3 offense, and on the most recent edition of the Grantland Basketball Hour TV show, he broke it down with the help of more snazzy pictures:
Zach Lowe is less overtly numbers-heavy, but he has as good an understanding of basketball analytics (basketbanalytics?) as anyone. He combines that with knowledge of things like NBA tactics and salary structure, and presents it all without being highfalutin. He’s a clean, direct writer. Cavs fans will be interested in his thoughts on the Dion Waiters trade, and also in his Luke Walton All-Stars, inspired by Walton’s time as an invaluable Wine and Gold bench cog. Lowe had a recent TV feature of his own, detailing the hidden skills that make Washington’s John Wall so good:
My point is, if you like basketball, read these guys. You’ll learn a few things, and you’ll have fun doing it.
♦♦♦
The Royal Rumble
Phew, that was all a little highbrow, no? Professors and efficiencies and all? One cannot live on champagne and caviar alone; you need some Bud heavy and chicken wings to balance it out. To that effect, I would like to discuss the biggest, most important event in sports entertainment. Not the Super Bowl, nor March Madness, nor the World Series; I am talking, of course, about the WWE Royal Rumble pay-per-view event.
For those of you who are grown-ups lacking the taste to appreciate such things, let me explain what the Royal Rumble is:
It begins as a standard professional wrestling match with two wrestlers—usually very large men—in the ring. While they trade haymakers and suplexes, a countdown clock ticks down from 90 seconds. When that clock strikes zero, a new wrestler enters the fray. When that happens, the 90 seconds reset, and the process repeats until 30 participants have joined the party.
The traditional methods of victory, most notably pinfalls and submission maneuvers, are of no use in the Rumble. The only way to be eliminated is for a wrestler to be to be expelled from the ring—and only over the top rope—such that both of his or her4 feet hit the floor. The last wrestler standing is the winner.
The top rope bit is important. If you get hurled out of the ring but go out between the ropes, you’re still in. If you get tossed over the top but manage to keep your toes off the ground (perhaps by holding onto the ropes or landing on a chair), you’re still in. If you’re knocked out cold such that smelling salts can’t make you come to, but you’re still in the ring, congratulations, you’re still in!
The final entrant ostensibly has the best shot at winning, though I have heard rumors that the action is in fact—gasp!—scripted.
There are often over a dozen wrestlers in the ring at once. Many of the contenders’ identities are known before the match, but there are always a couple surprise entrants that get a big pop from the crowd, often popular wrestlers returning from lengthy absences. The best surprises came in the 1998 Rumble, when Mick Foley came out three times as three separate personas: the schizophrenic Mankind, a hippie named Dude Love, and a masochistic brawler called Cactus Jack.
What’s at stake, you ask? Only the greatest opportunity that exists in sports entertainment: a shot at the WWE World Heavyweight Championship at Wrestlemania.
It’s juvenile and silly and ridiculous and perfect. I can’t wait. If you want nothing more than more wrestling talk, WFNY podcast host Craig Lyndall and I will be discussing this year’s Rumble soon (as it’s this coming Sunday, January 25), including how to bet on it. Be still, your beating hearts.5
So we are doing a Royal Rumble podcast soon. Things I didn't know I'd say. @wjcgibson
— Craig Lyndall (@WFNYCraig) January 20, 2015
Enjoy your Wednesday, gang. Be safe out there.
- Currently a visiting scholar at Harvard [↩]
- These charts also inspired my Game Illustrated Cavs previews, though those are decidedly more frivolous. [↩]
- So named for the team’s GM, Daryl Morey, among the foremost advocates of statistical analysis [↩]
- Three women have been in the Rumble [↩]
- If you really want more wrestling talk, I co-author a Wrasslin’ Wednesday column at a hot, up-and-coming site called Sports Monocle [↩]
10 Comments
Thanks for the link to the Lowe piece; hadn’t seen it and he is, as always, incisive and prescient. His objective lack of love for Dion’s game makes me feel better about the trade. I still like (bordering on love) Dion, but in the paternal optimistic way you envision your child developing while you downplay the weisenheimer stuff others notice first. Funny, I hated JJ Hickson from the start, must be Dion’s swag.
Have been and (probably) will always be a WWE fan. My attention comes and goes, but I’ve actually started watching regularly again for maybe about the last year. While I don’t think it holds a candle to the Silver Age of the NWO/Attitude/ECW era, there’s still a very impressive amount of young talent currently on the roster (even if creative still sucks). The current product actually reminds me a lot of early 90’s WWE. I just wish Vince would let them be themselves more and give them a chance to shine. And please, stop the non-stop nostalgia pandering. But I digress.
The Rumble is always good fun though. Alongside Mania, I think it’s the one PPV that consistently feels like a major event year in, year out.. That said, I can’t say I’m that excited for the Rumble itself this year. It’s nice that the crowd loves Daniels, but he doesn’t do much for me. And Roman Reigns isn’t bad, but I don’t think him and his scowl are ready for the big time yet. If I’m rooting for anyone, it’s the local boy – Dolph Ziggler, but even him… why is such a talented guy saddled with a faux early-90’s Billy Gunn look? Here’s to hoping he got some sort of makeover during the few weeks he was “fired”. And I want to see Brock german suplex everyone into oblivion too.
I watch but man they need some seriously new story lines. Love Sting but it’s a direct rip off of his days at WCW when he would rope down from the ceiling. Still better then what has been happening.
Agree completely. I was surprised at the excitement over Sting. The guy hasn’t really been able to really wrestle in 20 years. Plus, he looks old even in the makeup. I have zero interest in seeing him do that same shtick, especially since it got old pretty quick the first time around. I think the WWF’s general belief is: if it worked once, it’ll work twice, thrice, and on to infinity.
They do seem to have a lot of talent, but no idea how to put it all together. The thinking among those more in the know than me is that Triple H is running NXT (i.e. the minors) very well, but Vince still has the final say on WWE matters.
The Brock-Cena-Rollins triple threat is legitimately interesting, and I’m glad to say that I don’t know what’s going to happen in that one.
Also, you gents commenting on these matters goes a long way in making me feel better about following wrasslin’ as a pseudo-adult. I got back into it out of ironic, nostalgic affection…but in truth I sincerely enjoy the stuff.
JR much better spot up shooter than Dion. The 3 guys we got in the trades have upgraded our team where we need it most. How about signing Jordan Farmar and either cutting Delly or sending him down? I think Farmar would be a more effective backup point guard.
I hear the same thing about NXT. The little I’ve seen of it has been good, but had more of an indie feel to me. Not sure if the same formula would work for the main product, especially with its monthly PPV schedule.
I’ve felt some guilt over the years watching something supposedly low brow. But eh… whatever. I’ve come to realize that 99% of pop culture (and like 60% of high culture) is as bad if not worst. Pro wrestling bears more of a resemblance to reality than Sons of Anarchy or Gone Girl (that movie was horrendous). And in those you don’t get to see Charlie Hunnam or Ben Affleck F5 The Big Show.
Agreed; I would guess that much of NXT’s appeal is that it ISN’T the big show (not to be confused with The Big Show) so it has that sort of indie/alternative grit to it. That probably wouldn’t fly doing 2+ shows a week plus PPVs.
Also agree that it really ain’t that different from other pop culture, or ‘traditional’ sports for that matter. We’re in it for the storylines as much as anything.
Agreed; I’m all in on these trades. Solid value and pieces that (could) fit in just right. I’m curious to see if they go the Farmar route. I love Delly but he’s definitely been exposed this year.
Slowly gaining popularity, if you are into the MMA/UFC thing, is Team fighting championships. 5 on 5 at the same time until someone gets knocked out/submitted then it is 5 on 4 and so on. One of the guys on my high school football team is on the local team. You can youtube a team fighting championship to see what it is about.
http://www.limaohio.com/news/sports/151442174/Area-team-competes-in-Team-Fighting-Championships