Dear Reader,
I am sorry to dwell on this topic. You don't care. You just want something entertaining. I'm sorry. I'm stubborn. I wish I had the self-control of this guru (the handsome guy in the black polo).
Watch CBS Videos Online
What would I have done? "Chhhyeah, I know what beirut is. A good way to get my daily value of H20. My nutritious breakfast. Do I know what breathing is?" So I need to write this article. Not for you. For me.
In my article "The Lakers reached the 2008 NBA finals: impressive or not?", I made a three part argument:
1. Impressive feats must be difficult.
2. Odds are the best measure of difficulty we have in sports.
3. The Lakers odds to make the 2008 NBA finals were not very low. Therefore, the Lakers making the 2008 NBA finals was not impressive.
In response, Mssr. David Steinberg (MDS) seems to have gotten angry and banged his fist on his keyboard semi-randomly for 6-7 hours. I can extract a few main criticisms from the written diarrhea:
1. You can't apply odds to sports.
2. Your argument implies that favored teams cannot be impressive. Since that's not true (see the 1996 Bulls or Tiger Woods for counterexamples), you're wrong.
3. Your assumptions that lead to 49.7% odds for the Lakers reaching the 2008 NBA finals are wrong.
4. Your joke about igniting the party wasn't funny.
Response to criticism 1: Odds apply to sports. Period. This is why there's a spread when you bet on sports. The line adjusts the odds so that the both teams have 50% odds of beating the spread. Suppose there weren't spreads (implying both teams have a 50% chance of winning straight-up). I would make money by betting on the Lakers to beat the Clippers. I would be right more than 50% of the time. I would have a deeper understanding of reality than everyone else - like Neo! - and I would make lots of money.
Basketball, and most sports besides track, are intricate and complicated. But you can approximate the chances of one team beating another based on the available information. (Thought: if MDS doesn't believe in odds, why aren't I betting against him all the time? I could steal those mega-bucks he's raking in from the credit-score ads on this side of his blog.)
A clarification: odds do not mean the outcome of a game is predetermined. On a given night, the underdog can beat the favorite. They can even outplay the favorite. Odds simply give an indication of how likely that is to occur. When the odds are long, it is more difficult for the underdog to pull it off. They need to play near perfectly to pull it off. They need to put in an impressive performance to pull it off. The longer the odds, the more impressive the performance needed to win in the game.
A second clarification: when a non-favorite wins, that is not necessarily impressive. How long do the odds need to be for a win or accomplishment to be impressive? That's a matter of taste. How difficult does a feat need to be to really impress you?
Response to criticism 2: MDS misrepresents my point. In a single game, the outcome of the favorite winning is not impressive. That does not mean the win cannot be impressive. It can be impressive in at least two ways:
1. The favorite can win by an impressive margin. The Celtics played the Nuggets in Denver on Monday. Is the fact that they won impressive? I don't think so. The odds that the Celtics would win (away and without KG) were probably in the 40-60% range. What impressed me was the margin of victory. What are the odds that, under those circumstances (away and without KG) the Celtics beat the Nuggets by 40? I won't bother guesstimating. But they're low. The win was impressive because it was such a drubbing - the Celtics put in an impressive performance.
2. A team (which could be the favorite) can win from improbable circumstances. What's a good example here? Let's stick with the Celtics. Is the fact that they won Game 4 of the 2008 NBA finals (an away game) impressive? Not very. Their odds of winning were probably somewhere in the 30-50% range. Fast forward to the third quarter when they trailed by 24 points in the third quarter. At this point, their odds of winning were very low. If you played the game from that point, the Lakers win almost every time. It's difficult for the Celtics to come back from that position. But the game is only played once, and the Celtics were gutsy enough to win it. That's impressive.
(There are lots of similar examples: Tiger Woods winning the 2008 US Open by coming from behind on broken leg and torn ACL, Nadal winning the 2009 Australian Open against Federer on hard courts in five sets after playing a 5+ hour match two nights before, and, yes, Kobe scoring 15 in the fourth quarter to help beat the Spurs in the 2008 playoffs).
In addition, a favorite can impress by winning consistently. A good example is the 1996 Bulls. Take any single game. The outcome of the Bulls winning, with arguably the greatest team ever, is not surprising or impressive. (They could win in impressive fashion in either of the two ways above, but the outcome itself is not impressive). The fact that they won 72 games is impressive. Why? Although they are favored to win each game, the Bulls also have some chance of losing each game. That chance is not insignificant - they're playing other NBA teams, as MDS is quick to point out. To win 72 out of 82 games requires a 88% winning percentage. That means the 19996 Bulls either had a 88% chance (on average) of winning each game, or it means they beat the odds by consistently performing on such a high level.
Finally, individual plays and players can impress in all kinds of ways. They can make really difficult shots. They can make difficult shots consistently. They can perform athletic feats that we thought weren't possible. They can perform well in the toughest/most critical of circumstances (when most would be unable to succeed). They can do all three:
Response to criticism 3: Who cares? Make the assumptions much lower. Assume the Lakers have a 60% chance of beating the Nuggets, a 57.5% chance of beating the Jazz, and a 55% chance of beating the Spurs. They still have a 28.5% chance of making the Finals, and their odds are still better than any other team in the West. The outcome of the Lakers reaching the 2008 Finals is still not that impressive to me. If you had to guess who would make it, you would guess the Lakers.
Response to criticism 4: It was funny. The kitchen smelled like gas. One of the hosts said, "Oh shoot, you're leaning the stove." "Just trying to ignite the party," I shot back, without a moment's hesitation. I counted 3-4 chuckles, ranging from polite to almost-genuine, out of the 5-6 people in earshot. And MDS himself gave a chuckle, nay a short chortle, if I remember correctly. He might say he was laughing at me, not with me. Impossible. Because I was laughing at my own joke.
That's it. I'm done. Stay tuned for fresh material and topics you actually care about, coming soon.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Saturday, February 21, 2009
The Lakers reached the 2008 NBA finals: impressive or not?
"Hey Honest Bro", you say. "I thought you were going to take on tough questions. Both this and your last post have answered really easy questions".
"Blame Molson for the last one. Blame Mssr. David Steinberg for this one. (I will call him Mssr. to frenchify/emasculate him through the rest of this post)"
"You're making excuses. Have you gone soft? Have you - errr how do I say this - fallen off?"
"Now all I get all day is hate mail sayin' THB fell off.
What, 'cause I been in the lab with a pen and a pad
Tryin' to get this damn blogpost off.
I ain't havin' that. This is the millenium of Aftermath.
Ain't gonna be nothin' after that.
So give me one more blogpost with 20-30 hits,
and forget answering Q's, you can have it back."
A snippet from my latest hit "Forgot about THB". Why am I taking the time to answer this obvious question? Last night (this morning in fact!) between 0100hrs and 0225hrs, Mssr. David Steinberg and I had a stately, civilized debate on the title question. I won, but there were no witnesses to convince the stubborn Mssr. David Steinberg of this, well, undebatable outcome. Now I appeal to you, scores of faithful readers: kindly inform Mssr. David Steinberg that he is a blithering fool.
So that you have the context, let me describe the debating styles of the two participants:
Mssr. David Steinberg (MDS): a proponent of the brute force style of arguing. His motto: if the opponent is never allowed to complete a sentence, the opponent will struggle to put together a coherent argument. This kill-every-sentence tactic is key because MDS fails to make much of a coherent argument himself. Brandishing the volume and intensity of his voice like a large club, MDS is not afraid to employ any and all guerrilla tactics, such as personal attacks, changing the subject of the argument, and telling me that math is false.
THB: a true finesse player. Battle-tested with years of combat against the guru of brute force argumentation (THB's very father), THB has learned to wait patiently for the occasional calm in the storm of the brute force debator. Presented with this opportunity, THB will use a reserved tone of voice to belay his argument in a clear, coherent manner. THB is even prone to support his argument with facts and logic rather than merely increasing the volume of his voice to match the absurdity of his claims.
I will begin with an answer to this question that makes sense. Then, I will do my best to reformulate MDS's view in standard English sentences. Finally, I will relate the conclusion of our discussion.
Section I: THB's viewpoint
The Los Angeles Lakers making the 2008 NBA finals is not impressive. In no way, shape, or form. They had Kobe Bryant, who should have been league-MVP-runner-up to Chris Paul. They had a starting five team built around Kobe, including proven NBA players such as Derek Fisher and Lamar Odom. They had the best bench in the league, including Farmar, Ariza, Vujacic (the most odious player in the game today), and Luke Walton. Many would be borderline starters. They had Phil Jackson, who may go down as the most accomplished coach in NBA history. And then they added an All-Star center in Pau Gasol without giving up a thing. In short, they were stacked.
That they emerged as clear #1 seed heading into the playoffs surprised no one.
What about their competition? In round 1, they faced the Denver Nuggets. The Nuggets limped into the playoffs with a team that clearly didn't work (i.e., they had two ballhogs and no defense). They were dead meat. The Lakers swept them. Only one game was within 10 points. In round 2: they faced the Jazz. It was a good team playing against a stacked team. The Lakers won comfortably in six. Finally, they faced the San Antonio Spurs. The aging Spurs had played two tough series against the Suns and Hornets, and their marquee finisher Manu Ginboli was playing on a badly sprained ankle. The Lakers were younger and better to begin with, and the Spurs were handicapped. It showed. The Lakers won in five.
Was the Lakers' run impressive? That depends on your definition of impressive. I submit my definition:
im.pres.sive (adj): amazing observers by doing something very difficult
Why is it more impressive when a Cinderella team like George Mason reaches the Final Four than when a favorite like Florida wins the tournament? Degree of difficulty. Florida accomplished more, but it was more difficult for George Mason to reach the Final Four. How do we measure difficulty? Through odds. If you play any match-up in sports a hundred times, each team will win some number of those games - 50 in an even match-up. To reach the Final Four, George Mason had to win four games, and their odds of winning each game was less than 50%. Their odds of beating UConn was probably something like, I don't know, 5%. To string four improbable victories together is extremely difficult. It's very impressive. Florida had to win six games to gain the national title, but they were favored in every single one, even the final against UCLA. They had a team full of future NBA players.
Some rough sample math with made-up-but-probably-not-entirely-unrealistic-odds:
Probability of George Mason winning making the Final Four (multiply the probabilities of their winning each game): 40% * 30% * 15% * 5% = 0.01%. One in ten thousand.
Probability of Florida winning the NCAA tournament: 99.9% * 95% * 80% * 75% * 70% * 60% = ~25%. One in four.
That's why George Mason's run is more impressive. And probability shows us why the Lakers run to the NBA finals in not impressive. As you increase the length of a series, the chances of the better team winning increase. If one team beats another 75% of the time, they will win a seven game series 92.9% of the time. That's a big part of the reason that the probability of the Lakers reaching the NBA finals in 2008 was 49.7% (I prove this in appendix). Yeah, that's as impressive as getting tails when you flip a coin.
Note: I don't like the coin-flip analogy since "tails never fails" in practice, but it works in theory.
Section II: MDS's viewpoint
THEY'RE ALL NBA TEAMS. WINNING A SERIES AGAINST ANOTHER NBA TEAM IS IMPRESSIVE. THAT'S IMPRESSIVE. THEY ALL PLAY IN THE NBA. THEY'RE ALL GREAT BASKETBALL PLAYERS. THAT'S IMPRESSIVE. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN SAY THAT'S NOT IMPRESSIVE. YOU CAN'T APPLY MATH TO THIS. ODDS JUST DON'T APPLY. I DON'T CARE HOW THE HOUSE ALWAYS WINS IN SPORTS GAMBLING. YOU CAN'T APPLY ODDS. THEY'RE NOT PLAYING LOUSY TEAMS. EVEN IF THEY HAVE MORE TALENT, THEY'RE STILL PLAYING NBA TEAMS. IT'S HARD TO DO. IT'S IMPRESSIVE WHEN ANY TEAM IN PRO SPORTS MAKES A FINAL. THAT'S IMPRESSIVE. WELL, EVEN IF THE LAKERS HAD GOOD ODDS, IT'S IMPRESSIVE THAT THEY COULD FOLLOW THROUGH. IT'S IMPRESSIVE THAT THEY COULD MAKE GOOD ON THEIR ODDS BECAUSE SPORTS AREN'T AUTOMATIC. THEY STILL HAD TO DO IT. IT'S IMPRESSIVE. YOU'RE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. YOU'RE AN IDIOT. YOU PROBABLY BELIEVE THE BULLS WINNING THREE TITLES IN A ROW IS NOT IMPRESSIVE. WHAT'S IMPRESSIVE THEN? NOTHING TO YOU. YOU'RE ABSURD. IF THE LAKERS HAD GOOD ODDS, IT'S IMPRESSIVE THEY WERE GOOD ENOUGH TO GET THOSE ODDS. IT'S IMPRESSIVE THEY HAD THE MONEY TO PUT TOGETHER THAT GOOD OF A TEAM. IT'S THE NBA. YOU STILL HAVE TO BEAT GOOD TEAMS.
(Now imagine I typed this all again, only in bold and in a larger font.)
Section III: Conclusion
THB: I don't find it impressive when a team follows through on good odds. It's not automatic, but it's not impressive either. It's fairly likely to happen. More likely than not.
MDS: IT'S IMPRESSIVE. WHENEVER A FAVORITE WINS, IT'S IMPRESSIVE. ALL THE TEAMS IN THE NBA ARE GOOD. IT'S IMPRESSIVE WHEN A FAVORITE FOLLOWS THROUGH AND GETS THE JOB DONE.
THB: Say the Celtics were to face the Bobcats in a seven game series. Would you find it impressive if they won?
MDS: YES. IF THEY IT WERE THE PLAYOFFS, THE BOBCATS ARE STILL AN NBA...
At this point, I walked away to brush my teeth and go to sleep. I reduced his argument to pure absurdity. The Celtics would have a ninety-something percent chance of beating the Bobcats in a seven game series. I was satisfied that I reduced MDS to absurdity. If he's impressed when a Ray Allen free-throw goes in, more power to him. MDS is blessed (doomed?) to travel this earth wide-eyed.
Plus, Mitalee called, so I had to switch from my arguing voice to my girlfriend voice. I was too tired to switch back afterward and refute more of MDS's rubbish.
Appendix
Theorem: Based on reasonable assumptions, the Los Angeles Lakers had a 49.7% chance of reaching the 2008 NBA finals
Here are those reasonable assumptions:
1. The 2008 Los Angeles Lakers would beat the 2008 Denver Nuggets 75% of the time on a neutral court. Carmelo and AI just didn't work. On offense. Nevermind defense.
2. The 2008 Los Angeles Lakers would beat the 2008 Utah Jazz 65% of the time on a nuetral court. Again, the Jazz are good. But the Lakers are quite clearly better. Kobe trumps Deron Williams. Gasol trumps Boozer. The rest of the Lakers trump the rest of the Jazz.
3. The 2008 Los Angeles Lakers would beat the 2008 San Antonio Spurs 60% of the time. The Lakers are a deep team in their prime. They're rested. The Spurs are an aging team with a thin bench, extremely thin with an injured Manu Ginobli.
Note: if someone has NBA2K9, I'd be interested to know how close my estimates are (I think you'll need 2K9 to have Gasol on the Lakers and AI still on the Nuggets). Play the games computer v computer 10 times each.
Probability theory yields the following three results (using the probabilty mass function):
1. The Lakers had a 87.4% chance of beating the Nuggets in a seven game series.
2. The Lakers had a 80.0% chance of beating the Jazz in a seven game series.
3. The Lakers had a 70.1% chance of beating the Spurs in a seven game series.
To get the probability of three discrete events occuring in sequence, you multiply the probability of each event occurring. 87.4% * 80.0% * 70.1% = 49.7%. Therefore, the Lakers had a 49.7% chance of reaching the NBA finals.
QED.
My calculations are included here for reference.
"Blame Molson for the last one. Blame Mssr. David Steinberg for this one. (I will call him Mssr. to frenchify/emasculate him through the rest of this post)"
"You're making excuses. Have you gone soft? Have you - errr how do I say this - fallen off?"
"Now all I get all day is hate mail sayin' THB fell off.
What, 'cause I been in the lab with a pen and a pad
Tryin' to get this damn blogpost off.
I ain't havin' that. This is the millenium of Aftermath.
Ain't gonna be nothin' after that.
So give me one more blogpost with 20-30 hits,
and forget answering Q's, you can have it back."
A snippet from my latest hit "Forgot about THB". Why am I taking the time to answer this obvious question? Last night (this morning in fact!) between 0100hrs and 0225hrs, Mssr. David Steinberg and I had a stately, civilized debate on the title question. I won, but there were no witnesses to convince the stubborn Mssr. David Steinberg of this, well, undebatable outcome. Now I appeal to you, scores of faithful readers: kindly inform Mssr. David Steinberg that he is a blithering fool.
So that you have the context, let me describe the debating styles of the two participants:
Mssr. David Steinberg (MDS): a proponent of the brute force style of arguing. His motto: if the opponent is never allowed to complete a sentence, the opponent will struggle to put together a coherent argument. This kill-every-sentence tactic is key because MDS fails to make much of a coherent argument himself. Brandishing the volume and intensity of his voice like a large club, MDS is not afraid to employ any and all guerrilla tactics, such as personal attacks, changing the subject of the argument, and telling me that math is false.
THB: a true finesse player. Battle-tested with years of combat against the guru of brute force argumentation (THB's very father), THB has learned to wait patiently for the occasional calm in the storm of the brute force debator. Presented with this opportunity, THB will use a reserved tone of voice to belay his argument in a clear, coherent manner. THB is even prone to support his argument with facts and logic rather than merely increasing the volume of his voice to match the absurdity of his claims.
I will begin with an answer to this question that makes sense. Then, I will do my best to reformulate MDS's view in standard English sentences. Finally, I will relate the conclusion of our discussion.
Section I: THB's viewpoint
The Los Angeles Lakers making the 2008 NBA finals is not impressive. In no way, shape, or form. They had Kobe Bryant, who should have been league-MVP-runner-up to Chris Paul. They had a starting five team built around Kobe, including proven NBA players such as Derek Fisher and Lamar Odom. They had the best bench in the league, including Farmar, Ariza, Vujacic (the most odious player in the game today), and Luke Walton. Many would be borderline starters. They had Phil Jackson, who may go down as the most accomplished coach in NBA history. And then they added an All-Star center in Pau Gasol without giving up a thing. In short, they were stacked.
That they emerged as clear #1 seed heading into the playoffs surprised no one.
What about their competition? In round 1, they faced the Denver Nuggets. The Nuggets limped into the playoffs with a team that clearly didn't work (i.e., they had two ballhogs and no defense). They were dead meat. The Lakers swept them. Only one game was within 10 points. In round 2: they faced the Jazz. It was a good team playing against a stacked team. The Lakers won comfortably in six. Finally, they faced the San Antonio Spurs. The aging Spurs had played two tough series against the Suns and Hornets, and their marquee finisher Manu Ginboli was playing on a badly sprained ankle. The Lakers were younger and better to begin with, and the Spurs were handicapped. It showed. The Lakers won in five.
Was the Lakers' run impressive? That depends on your definition of impressive. I submit my definition:
im.pres.sive (adj): amazing observers by doing something very difficult
Why is it more impressive when a Cinderella team like George Mason reaches the Final Four than when a favorite like Florida wins the tournament? Degree of difficulty. Florida accomplished more, but it was more difficult for George Mason to reach the Final Four. How do we measure difficulty? Through odds. If you play any match-up in sports a hundred times, each team will win some number of those games - 50 in an even match-up. To reach the Final Four, George Mason had to win four games, and their odds of winning each game was less than 50%. Their odds of beating UConn was probably something like, I don't know, 5%. To string four improbable victories together is extremely difficult. It's very impressive. Florida had to win six games to gain the national title, but they were favored in every single one, even the final against UCLA. They had a team full of future NBA players.
Some rough sample math with made-up-but-probably-not-entirely-unrealistic-odds:
Probability of George Mason winning making the Final Four (multiply the probabilities of their winning each game): 40% * 30% * 15% * 5% = 0.01%. One in ten thousand.
Probability of Florida winning the NCAA tournament: 99.9% * 95% * 80% * 75% * 70% * 60% = ~25%. One in four.
That's why George Mason's run is more impressive. And probability shows us why the Lakers run to the NBA finals in not impressive. As you increase the length of a series, the chances of the better team winning increase. If one team beats another 75% of the time, they will win a seven game series 92.9% of the time. That's a big part of the reason that the probability of the Lakers reaching the NBA finals in 2008 was 49.7% (I prove this in appendix). Yeah, that's as impressive as getting tails when you flip a coin.
Note: I don't like the coin-flip analogy since "tails never fails" in practice, but it works in theory.
Section II: MDS's viewpoint
THEY'RE ALL NBA TEAMS. WINNING A SERIES AGAINST ANOTHER NBA TEAM IS IMPRESSIVE. THAT'S IMPRESSIVE. THEY ALL PLAY IN THE NBA. THEY'RE ALL GREAT BASKETBALL PLAYERS. THAT'S IMPRESSIVE. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN SAY THAT'S NOT IMPRESSIVE. YOU CAN'T APPLY MATH TO THIS. ODDS JUST DON'T APPLY. I DON'T CARE HOW THE HOUSE ALWAYS WINS IN SPORTS GAMBLING. YOU CAN'T APPLY ODDS. THEY'RE NOT PLAYING LOUSY TEAMS. EVEN IF THEY HAVE MORE TALENT, THEY'RE STILL PLAYING NBA TEAMS. IT'S HARD TO DO. IT'S IMPRESSIVE WHEN ANY TEAM IN PRO SPORTS MAKES A FINAL. THAT'S IMPRESSIVE. WELL, EVEN IF THE LAKERS HAD GOOD ODDS, IT'S IMPRESSIVE THAT THEY COULD FOLLOW THROUGH. IT'S IMPRESSIVE THAT THEY COULD MAKE GOOD ON THEIR ODDS BECAUSE SPORTS AREN'T AUTOMATIC. THEY STILL HAD TO DO IT. IT'S IMPRESSIVE. YOU'RE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. YOU'RE AN IDIOT. YOU PROBABLY BELIEVE THE BULLS WINNING THREE TITLES IN A ROW IS NOT IMPRESSIVE. WHAT'S IMPRESSIVE THEN? NOTHING TO YOU. YOU'RE ABSURD. IF THE LAKERS HAD GOOD ODDS, IT'S IMPRESSIVE THEY WERE GOOD ENOUGH TO GET THOSE ODDS. IT'S IMPRESSIVE THEY HAD THE MONEY TO PUT TOGETHER THAT GOOD OF A TEAM. IT'S THE NBA. YOU STILL HAVE TO BEAT GOOD TEAMS.
(Now imagine I typed this all again, only in bold and in a larger font.)
Section III: Conclusion
THB: I don't find it impressive when a team follows through on good odds. It's not automatic, but it's not impressive either. It's fairly likely to happen. More likely than not.
MDS: IT'S IMPRESSIVE. WHENEVER A FAVORITE WINS, IT'S IMPRESSIVE. ALL THE TEAMS IN THE NBA ARE GOOD. IT'S IMPRESSIVE WHEN A FAVORITE FOLLOWS THROUGH AND GETS THE JOB DONE.
THB: Say the Celtics were to face the Bobcats in a seven game series. Would you find it impressive if they won?
MDS: YES. IF THEY IT WERE THE PLAYOFFS, THE BOBCATS ARE STILL AN NBA...
At this point, I walked away to brush my teeth and go to sleep. I reduced his argument to pure absurdity. The Celtics would have a ninety-something percent chance of beating the Bobcats in a seven game series. I was satisfied that I reduced MDS to absurdity. If he's impressed when a Ray Allen free-throw goes in, more power to him. MDS is blessed (doomed?) to travel this earth wide-eyed.
Plus, Mitalee called, so I had to switch from my arguing voice to my girlfriend voice. I was too tired to switch back afterward and refute more of MDS's rubbish.
Appendix
Theorem: Based on reasonable assumptions, the Los Angeles Lakers had a 49.7% chance of reaching the 2008 NBA finals
Here are those reasonable assumptions:
1. The 2008 Los Angeles Lakers would beat the 2008 Denver Nuggets 75% of the time on a neutral court. Carmelo and AI just didn't work. On offense. Nevermind defense.
2. The 2008 Los Angeles Lakers would beat the 2008 Utah Jazz 65% of the time on a nuetral court. Again, the Jazz are good. But the Lakers are quite clearly better. Kobe trumps Deron Williams. Gasol trumps Boozer. The rest of the Lakers trump the rest of the Jazz.
3. The 2008 Los Angeles Lakers would beat the 2008 San Antonio Spurs 60% of the time. The Lakers are a deep team in their prime. They're rested. The Spurs are an aging team with a thin bench, extremely thin with an injured Manu Ginobli.
Note: if someone has NBA2K9, I'd be interested to know how close my estimates are (I think you'll need 2K9 to have Gasol on the Lakers and AI still on the Nuggets). Play the games computer v computer 10 times each.
Probability theory yields the following three results (using the probabilty mass function):
1. The Lakers had a 87.4% chance of beating the Nuggets in a seven game series.
2. The Lakers had a 80.0% chance of beating the Jazz in a seven game series.
3. The Lakers had a 70.1% chance of beating the Spurs in a seven game series.
To get the probability of three discrete events occuring in sequence, you multiply the probability of each event occurring. 87.4% * 80.0% * 70.1% = 49.7%. Therefore, the Lakers had a 49.7% chance of reaching the NBA finals.
QED.
My calculations are included here for reference.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Answer honestly: would you prefer....to have world peace or free beer for life?
Okay, Molson. I think I see how you envision this one playing out. The guys are hanging out, drinking BEER. Just some guys drinking BEER. Probably wearing flannels, unshaven, wearing frontwards non-flat brimmed hats. And Wranglers. Brett Favre is there (I know he said he wasn't coming, but he changed his mind). Some real guys, the kind they don't make anymore. Brett jogs over to the cooler. In the back of the truck. American made. "Who wants an ice cold BEER?". Brett tosses guy #1 a BEER. It's most likely intercepted by someone else. But that's okay, there's enough BEER to go around.
(Substitute ice cold BEER for football below).
One barrel-chested gentleman pushes his beard out of his eyes and reads the question off the bottle. "Hey guys, tough question: would you rather have world peace or free BEER for life?"
Brett: "That's easy. With free BEER for life, who'd want to fight a war anyway?".
Guys: "Huh." "You tell 'em, old number four." "That's right." "I love hanging out with hall-of-fame quarterbacks who are really just regular, down-to-earth guys like me."
Now that I've thrown up (twice: once for the stupidity of the question, and once for the imaginary commercial I made), let's get down to business. Even a self-proclaimed bro like me knows the answer has to be world peace. I learned the importance of world peace from the ultimate teacher: television. Oddly, I did not quite learn this in church. For as long as I can remember, the priest in my parish has been praying for peace in the middle east. I think because it rhymes, generally rolls off the tongue nicely, and, who are we kidding anyhow? If the prayers start working, we get peace in the middle east, and we can move on to accomplishing all our other goals with virtually no work. Otherwise, it's all just hot air.
Television gets it. World peace is really important. Jack Bauer has killed hundreds of people for world peace. And that's only in the six and a half days we've seen.
Wait until next season, when Jack wills a partner out of retirement. You guessed it: Brett Favre. But that would be ridiculous, and 24 is anything but ridiculous. Plots don't revolve around retiring and un-retiring (that is, after the first hour, when we bring Jack out of retirement each season). Plots revolve around real problems, like this season's stolen "CPU" device, which has complete control every airplane, nuclear power plant, train, toaster, and Nerf weapon in the United States. And lookout, it's controlled by the military dictator from Songala. For those of you having trouble finding Songala on the map, it's right between Neverneverland and Atlantis.
You might laugh, but I'm not the only one who takes 24 seriously. The New York Times printed an article that blames Jack for increased prevalence of torture among CIA agents. Fortunately, geniuses are in charge of 24, as evidenced by their two part response:
1. Did the 24 people rebuke the claims that 24 is responsible for the increase in torture (and thereby downplaying the importance of their TV show)? Heck no! Instead they took credit for putting the first black president in office. They paved the way for 2008 with black TV president David Palmer, who was in office way back in 2000. Let's just hope Obama isn't relegated to State Farm commercials when his term in office is up.
2. Did the 24 people cave from the pressure and remove torture from their show? Heck no! That would remove the key moments in the show, when you end up rooting for the "good guy" to do some really f-ed up stuff to the "bad guy" in order to save thousands of innocent American lives. Instead, they got Jack a sidekick. A female sidekick. A female sidekick who is in charge of torturing anyone Jack needs tortured, and is really good at looking conflicted and sad afterward. Doing what's "necessary" isn't always the jolly fun time Jack made you think through seasons 1-6. It's actually hard. But "necessary". DO IT NOW!
Hey Brett, make yourself useful. Go get Jack a BEER. Without Jack, there's no America anymore. And that means no audience for your cute Wranglers commercial. You better fast-track your move to the ESPN booth. They've kept your shrine intact.
(Substitute ice cold BEER for football below).
One barrel-chested gentleman pushes his beard out of his eyes and reads the question off the bottle. "Hey guys, tough question: would you rather have world peace or free BEER for life?"
Brett: "That's easy. With free BEER for life, who'd want to fight a war anyway?".
Guys: "Huh." "You tell 'em, old number four." "That's right." "I love hanging out with hall-of-fame quarterbacks who are really just regular, down-to-earth guys like me."
Now that I've thrown up (twice: once for the stupidity of the question, and once for the imaginary commercial I made), let's get down to business. Even a self-proclaimed bro like me knows the answer has to be world peace. I learned the importance of world peace from the ultimate teacher: television. Oddly, I did not quite learn this in church. For as long as I can remember, the priest in my parish has been praying for peace in the middle east. I think because it rhymes, generally rolls off the tongue nicely, and, who are we kidding anyhow? If the prayers start working, we get peace in the middle east, and we can move on to accomplishing all our other goals with virtually no work. Otherwise, it's all just hot air.
Television gets it. World peace is really important. Jack Bauer has killed hundreds of people for world peace. And that's only in the six and a half days we've seen.
Wait until next season, when Jack wills a partner out of retirement. You guessed it: Brett Favre. But that would be ridiculous, and 24 is anything but ridiculous. Plots don't revolve around retiring and un-retiring (that is, after the first hour, when we bring Jack out of retirement each season). Plots revolve around real problems, like this season's stolen "CPU" device, which has complete control every airplane, nuclear power plant, train, toaster, and Nerf weapon in the United States. And lookout, it's controlled by the military dictator from Songala. For those of you having trouble finding Songala on the map, it's right between Neverneverland and Atlantis.
You might laugh, but I'm not the only one who takes 24 seriously. The New York Times printed an article that blames Jack for increased prevalence of torture among CIA agents. Fortunately, geniuses are in charge of 24, as evidenced by their two part response:
1. Did the 24 people rebuke the claims that 24 is responsible for the increase in torture (and thereby downplaying the importance of their TV show)? Heck no! Instead they took credit for putting the first black president in office. They paved the way for 2008 with black TV president David Palmer, who was in office way back in 2000. Let's just hope Obama isn't relegated to State Farm commercials when his term in office is up.
2. Did the 24 people cave from the pressure and remove torture from their show? Heck no! That would remove the key moments in the show, when you end up rooting for the "good guy" to do some really f-ed up stuff to the "bad guy" in order to save thousands of innocent American lives. Instead, they got Jack a sidekick. A female sidekick. A female sidekick who is in charge of torturing anyone Jack needs tortured, and is really good at looking conflicted and sad afterward. Doing what's "necessary" isn't always the jolly fun time Jack made you think through seasons 1-6. It's actually hard. But "necessary". DO IT NOW!
Hey Brett, make yourself useful. Go get Jack a BEER. Without Jack, there's no America anymore. And that means no audience for your cute Wranglers commercial. You better fast-track your move to the ESPN booth. They've kept your shrine intact.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Answer honestly: would you prefer...to be constantly hungry or constantly itchy for the rest of your life?
An anonymous reader question! The mystique, the intrigue! Re: the question, it's pretty miserable either way. O nameless inquisitor, what terrible ails have befallen thee?
Itchy is bad. Visibly bad.
Pretend you don't look like a walking STD. You're still twitching and
TIMEOUT!
Who put Nancy Lieberman on NBA Coast to Coast? Political correctness is one thing, but putting this
TIMEOUT WITHIN TIMEOUT!
What an outrageous twenty second span. This joker has set his ring tone to "Peanut Butter Jelly Time". Thanks. I was hoping for a burst of K-Fed each time your mom calls.
(Timeout 1 continued) airhead on a fine NBA program: flat out unnecessary. ESPN, this is almost as appalling as your group-hug A-Rod coverage.
Before I get back to the main point, an FYI: Nancy Lieberman was known as "Lady Magic" as in the female Magic Johnson. And there's no better example of a walking STD than Magic himself. What a coincidence! I didn't think the timeout would have anything to do with the rest of the article.
I was saying: Suppose you're constantly itchy. Even if you don't look like Magic/Woogie, you'll be twitching and clawing at yourself like a crack addict. By my logic, itchy = everyone who looks at you immediately thinks you have an STD or are addicted to drugs.
Now, what's the story with being constantly hungry? I'll be honest, I can see either extreme:
1. You get really skinny. You're constantly hungry, implying that you never have enough to eat.
2. You get really fat. No matter how much you eat, you're still hungry. You might also become poor if your hunger is insatiable to the point where you need to buy food everywhere you go.
To straighten this matter out, I interviewed a guy who knows (the red one below).
THB: You guys look pretty happy. Is it somehow fun being hungry, hungry all the time?
HHH: Are you an idiot? It's a publicity shot. My life is about one thing: feeding the white marble addiction. Sure I throw on the smile, but that's just so those stupid tykes open the box and help me stuff white marbles down my gullet.
THB: So you're saying it's miserable?
HHH: Look. There are positives and negatives. I spend most of my time sitting in a box, and I'm always hungry, hungry. Negative. When I'm hungry, hungry and then I do get my chops on a white marble, it's bliss. Positive. Each time I eat a white marble, I excrete it within seconds. Negative. I get to rub up with that cutie in pink. Positive. I have to make my moves on Ms. Pink in front of children ages 4 and up. Positive.
THB: Since you've been hungry, hungry, have you lost or gained weight?
HHH: I've been hungry, hungry my entire life, chief.
THB: And have you lost or gained weight?
HHH: I've remained exactly the same weight, except during periods where I'm eating. Suppose I have X white marbles inside my body that weigh Y pounds each. Then, my weight = my normal weight + X * Y. Within seconds of finishing eating, I'm back to my normal weight since I have 0 marbles inside me. Again, that's due to my lightning-quick digestive tract.
THB: Then, you literally shit where you eat as a result of that lightning-quick digestive tract. Isn't that unsanitary?
HHH: Fortunately, the speed of the tract really doesn't allow for too much, err, processing of the marbles. No mess, no smell. This is especially fortunate since I then re-eat the marbles some time later. Good as new!
THB: You're really fine with the eat-excrement-eat-ad-infinitum cycle?
HHH: Practically speaking, yes. Theoretically, less so. Do you think I have cause for a lawsuit against the game makers?
THB: I don't know. Have you ever used performance enhancing drugs?
HHH: Yes, I admit that I used them between the precise dates of June 3, 2001 and October, 21 2003. However, I have no idea what drug. I'm so sorry that I used them to make hundreds of millions of dollars, hoard all the white marbles, and to seduce Ms. Pink, who couldn't resist my bulging muscles, fame, money, and white marble monopoly. I deeply regret that move above all else in my life. After lying about it and covering it up for five years, I'm now telling the you the truth. Have some pity: I'm just an honest HHH who made a mistake that netted him ridiculous amounts of money, fame, and female HHH lovin' with no consequences beyond potential damage to my legacy.
THB: I understand. You were young and hungry, hungry.
Hmmm, a mixed bag. But it doesn't sound as bad as instant association with STDs and crack.
Itchy is bad. Visibly bad.
Pretend you don't look like a walking STD. You're still twitching and
TIMEOUT!
Who put Nancy Lieberman on NBA Coast to Coast? Political correctness is one thing, but putting this
TIMEOUT WITHIN TIMEOUT!
What an outrageous twenty second span. This joker has set his ring tone to "Peanut Butter Jelly Time". Thanks. I was hoping for a burst of K-Fed each time your mom calls.
(Timeout 1 continued) airhead on a fine NBA program: flat out unnecessary. ESPN, this is almost as appalling as your group-hug A-Rod coverage.
Before I get back to the main point, an FYI: Nancy Lieberman was known as "Lady Magic" as in the female Magic Johnson. And there's no better example of a walking STD than Magic himself. What a coincidence! I didn't think the timeout would have anything to do with the rest of the article.
I was saying: Suppose you're constantly itchy. Even if you don't look like Magic/Woogie, you'll be twitching and clawing at yourself like a crack addict. By my logic, itchy = everyone who looks at you immediately thinks you have an STD or are addicted to drugs.
Now, what's the story with being constantly hungry? I'll be honest, I can see either extreme:
1. You get really skinny. You're constantly hungry, implying that you never have enough to eat.
2. You get really fat. No matter how much you eat, you're still hungry. You might also become poor if your hunger is insatiable to the point where you need to buy food everywhere you go.
To straighten this matter out, I interviewed a guy who knows (the red one below).
THB: You guys look pretty happy. Is it somehow fun being hungry, hungry all the time?
HHH: Are you an idiot? It's a publicity shot. My life is about one thing: feeding the white marble addiction. Sure I throw on the smile, but that's just so those stupid tykes open the box and help me stuff white marbles down my gullet.
THB: So you're saying it's miserable?
HHH: Look. There are positives and negatives. I spend most of my time sitting in a box, and I'm always hungry, hungry. Negative. When I'm hungry, hungry and then I do get my chops on a white marble, it's bliss. Positive. Each time I eat a white marble, I excrete it within seconds. Negative. I get to rub up with that cutie in pink. Positive. I have to make my moves on Ms. Pink in front of children ages 4 and up. Positive.
THB: Since you've been hungry, hungry, have you lost or gained weight?
HHH: I've been hungry, hungry my entire life, chief.
THB: And have you lost or gained weight?
HHH: I've remained exactly the same weight, except during periods where I'm eating. Suppose I have X white marbles inside my body that weigh Y pounds each. Then, my weight = my normal weight + X * Y. Within seconds of finishing eating, I'm back to my normal weight since I have 0 marbles inside me. Again, that's due to my lightning-quick digestive tract.
THB: Then, you literally shit where you eat as a result of that lightning-quick digestive tract. Isn't that unsanitary?
HHH: Fortunately, the speed of the tract really doesn't allow for too much, err, processing of the marbles. No mess, no smell. This is especially fortunate since I then re-eat the marbles some time later. Good as new!
THB: You're really fine with the eat-excrement-eat-ad-infinitum cycle?
HHH: Practically speaking, yes. Theoretically, less so. Do you think I have cause for a lawsuit against the game makers?
THB: I don't know. Have you ever used performance enhancing drugs?
HHH: Yes, I admit that I used them between the precise dates of June 3, 2001 and October, 21 2003. However, I have no idea what drug. I'm so sorry that I used them to make hundreds of millions of dollars, hoard all the white marbles, and to seduce Ms. Pink, who couldn't resist my bulging muscles, fame, money, and white marble monopoly. I deeply regret that move above all else in my life. After lying about it and covering it up for five years, I'm now telling the you the truth. Have some pity: I'm just an honest HHH who made a mistake that netted him ridiculous amounts of money, fame, and female HHH lovin' with no consequences beyond potential damage to my legacy.
THB: I understand. You were young and hungry, hungry.
Hmmm, a mixed bag. But it doesn't sound as bad as instant association with STDs and crack.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Addendum to Nadal or Federer: Is Rod Laver the greatest tennis player ever?
Check out Rod Laver. There's an actual man behind that pair of shoes you were peer-pressured into buying in 8th grade. Look at the pipes!
Rod won 11 majors. But that's only half the story. Rod won the Grand Slam in 1962 as an amateur. He turned professional in 1963, and claimed the number 1 ranking within the year. He held that ranking for the next seven years. Professionals were not allowed to compete in what we call the majors today until the beginning of the Open Era in 1968. Rod won Wimbledon in '68. In 1969, Rod won the Grand Slam again.
From 1963-1967, Rod was ranked number 1 and in the prime of his career (he was 24 in '63). Rod won the U.S. Pro Championships 3 times, the Wembley Pro Championship 5 times, and the French Pro Championship 2 times (These three tournaments were known as "The Prestige", the de facto majors of the day). Toss these in, and Rod has a record 21 majors. What if there were a fourth "prestige tournament" in Australia? How many times would he have won that with the home crowd cheering him on?
Rod won on every surface. Grass, clay, indoor wood, quicksand...it didn't matter to good old Rod. No matter the surface, tennis is tennis, and Rod knew tennis.
Hey Julius Heldman, what was Rod's style like?
Julius Heldman pointed out, "He is competent on low balls, handling them with underspin for control, but he will cream any ball at waist level or higher."
Well, what did Bud Collins think?
Bud Collins wrote, "I remain unconvinced that there ever was a better player than Rod Laver".
I agree, Bud.
Bibliography
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver
For the record, I recently had an argument over who would win a tennis match today between Rod Laver, age 70, and me. My dad is certain Rod would take me to school. I think I could drop shot him, and then lob him if he got there. What do you think?
Rod won 11 majors. But that's only half the story. Rod won the Grand Slam in 1962 as an amateur. He turned professional in 1963, and claimed the number 1 ranking within the year. He held that ranking for the next seven years. Professionals were not allowed to compete in what we call the majors today until the beginning of the Open Era in 1968. Rod won Wimbledon in '68. In 1969, Rod won the Grand Slam again.
From 1963-1967, Rod was ranked number 1 and in the prime of his career (he was 24 in '63). Rod won the U.S. Pro Championships 3 times, the Wembley Pro Championship 5 times, and the French Pro Championship 2 times (These three tournaments were known as "The Prestige", the de facto majors of the day). Toss these in, and Rod has a record 21 majors. What if there were a fourth "prestige tournament" in Australia? How many times would he have won that with the home crowd cheering him on?
Rod won on every surface. Grass, clay, indoor wood, quicksand...it didn't matter to good old Rod. No matter the surface, tennis is tennis, and Rod knew tennis.
Hey Julius Heldman, what was Rod's style like?
Julius Heldman pointed out, "He is competent on low balls, handling them with underspin for control, but he will cream any ball at waist level or higher."
Well, what did Bud Collins think?
Bud Collins wrote, "I remain unconvinced that there ever was a better player than Rod Laver".
I agree, Bud.
Bibliography
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver
For the record, I recently had an argument over who would win a tennis match today between Rod Laver, age 70, and me. My dad is certain Rod would take me to school. I think I could drop shot him, and then lob him if he got there. What do you think?
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Nadal or Federer?
Whispers Dick Enberg at the Australian Open: "How can you choose between two class acts? Federer, potentially the greatest of all time. Nadal, the fiery Spaniard. I say root for both of them."
Don't be a Dick.
It's a rivalry. You can't root for the Red Sox and the Yankees, the Celtics and the Lakers, or Kobe Bryant and women's rights. Or Jason Kidd and women's rights. Or Ron Artest and women's rights. Or Ricky Davis and winning.
I'll give you four good reasons to pick Nadal.
1. Federer is not the greatest ever.
I don't care how many majors he wins. This says it all:
Federer is in his prime. Nadal is in his prime. Nadal dominates Federer. Nadal's career record is 13-6 against Federer, 11-4 in tournament finals. But it's worse that that: Federer is afraid of Nadal. In the picture, Federer's not down because he lost the Australian Open. He's won it three or four times already. He's scared that he won't win another major because he can't beat Nadal. He's scared that his reign is over. You're not the greatest if another guy is better than you. Period.
Point two is really a corollary of the first point or perhaps an explanation for the first point.
2. Federer is a mental marshmallow.
He's more talented than Nadal; his game is unreal. Mesmerizing. Until the going gets tough. Then he makes a smooth transition from smoking forehand winners to spraying souvenirs into the stands. And he gets what I call the "crash-and-burn-teenage-Olympic-gymnast" look. Sans Federer, you would only see this once every four years when some poor prepubescent girl, who's spent every waking hour of her probably less than 13 years on the planet doing cartwheels and flips while a middle-aged, humorless Eastern European man with a handlebar mustache criticizes her every misstep, wobbles and falls from a six-inch wide beam. Before she fades into anonymity, the Olympic-quality cameramen are sure to capture this girl's reaction and we viewers are treated to the galling sight of a child who somehow subconsciously knows she's past her prime; that she's likely to pass 60lbs and 5'0'' by the time the next games rolls around and thus she'll be unable to compete with the lighter, more aerodynamic 8-year-olds to whom mustache-man has already turned his attention; that, by all standards that matter to her at this stage of her life (and this stage only, we hope), she couldn't cut the mustard.
That was Federer in the above picture. But, what's more telling, he gave us a preview in the third set tie break, right before he had to serve to stay in the set, down 6-3. You could see him think: "Oh no. I, the great Roger Federer, just lost three straight points. I am about to lose this set, and, short of Nadal's leg falling off, there's no way I can win two straight sets against this guy. My girlfriend is surprisingly unattractive given the amount of money and fame I have*." He double-faulted, and the rest played out like he thought.
In stark contrast, point number three:
3. Nadal is a freaking bulldog.
He never says die/plays until the final whistle/has no quit in him/doesn't count his chickens before they hatch/a penny saved is a penny earned. You get the idea. By the way, he might win more majors then Federer (he has 6, Federer had 2 at an equivalent age).
4. Nadal's style is ultra-cool whereas Federer's is just pompous.
The "RF" crested white suit and matching man-purse have got to go. But keep the handkerchief to mop up those tears (snap).
Do a Google image search for Nadal. His outfits are awesome. Most incorporate some 80's fluorescence. I must say I'm disappointed the capris and and cutoff T combo is a thing of the past. He also never gives the teenage-gymnast look. He has an angry pirate look he uses when he's fired up.
So, if you like teenage gymnasts and manpurses (menpurse? manpursi?), pick RF. If you like the 80's and pirates (or just don't like the Federer things), pick Nadal.
*I have great respect for Federer sticking by his girl in spite of the fame and money. And she's not unattractive. I just find it surprising that a guy as into himself as RF doesn't flood his box with bombshell gold-diggers. Classy move, Rog. But it doesn't redeem you for choking every time a worthy opponent gives you a decent match.
Check back soon for an addendum regarding why Rod Laver might be the greatest tennis player of all time.
Don't be a Dick.
It's a rivalry. You can't root for the Red Sox and the Yankees, the Celtics and the Lakers, or Kobe Bryant and women's rights. Or Jason Kidd and women's rights. Or Ron Artest and women's rights. Or Ricky Davis and winning.
I'll give you four good reasons to pick Nadal.
1. Federer is not the greatest ever.
I don't care how many majors he wins. This says it all:
Federer is in his prime. Nadal is in his prime. Nadal dominates Federer. Nadal's career record is 13-6 against Federer, 11-4 in tournament finals. But it's worse that that: Federer is afraid of Nadal. In the picture, Federer's not down because he lost the Australian Open. He's won it three or four times already. He's scared that he won't win another major because he can't beat Nadal. He's scared that his reign is over. You're not the greatest if another guy is better than you. Period.
Point two is really a corollary of the first point or perhaps an explanation for the first point.
2. Federer is a mental marshmallow.
He's more talented than Nadal; his game is unreal. Mesmerizing. Until the going gets tough. Then he makes a smooth transition from smoking forehand winners to spraying souvenirs into the stands. And he gets what I call the "crash-and-burn-teenage-Olympic-gymnast" look. Sans Federer, you would only see this once every four years when some poor prepubescent girl, who's spent every waking hour of her probably less than 13 years on the planet doing cartwheels and flips while a middle-aged, humorless Eastern European man with a handlebar mustache criticizes her every misstep, wobbles and falls from a six-inch wide beam. Before she fades into anonymity, the Olympic-quality cameramen are sure to capture this girl's reaction and we viewers are treated to the galling sight of a child who somehow subconsciously knows she's past her prime; that she's likely to pass 60lbs and 5'0'' by the time the next games rolls around and thus she'll be unable to compete with the lighter, more aerodynamic 8-year-olds to whom mustache-man has already turned his attention; that, by all standards that matter to her at this stage of her life (and this stage only, we hope), she couldn't cut the mustard.
That was Federer in the above picture. But, what's more telling, he gave us a preview in the third set tie break, right before he had to serve to stay in the set, down 6-3. You could see him think: "Oh no. I, the great Roger Federer, just lost three straight points. I am about to lose this set, and, short of Nadal's leg falling off, there's no way I can win two straight sets against this guy. My girlfriend is surprisingly unattractive given the amount of money and fame I have*." He double-faulted, and the rest played out like he thought.
In stark contrast, point number three:
3. Nadal is a freaking bulldog.
He never says die/plays until the final whistle/has no quit in him/doesn't count his chickens before they hatch/a penny saved is a penny earned. You get the idea. By the way, he might win more majors then Federer (he has 6, Federer had 2 at an equivalent age).
4. Nadal's style is ultra-cool whereas Federer's is just pompous.
The "RF" crested white suit and matching man-purse have got to go. But keep the handkerchief to mop up those tears (snap).
Do a Google image search for Nadal. His outfits are awesome. Most incorporate some 80's fluorescence. I must say I'm disappointed the capris and and cutoff T combo is a thing of the past. He also never gives the teenage-gymnast look. He has an angry pirate look he uses when he's fired up.
So, if you like teenage gymnasts and manpurses (menpurse? manpursi?), pick RF. If you like the 80's and pirates (or just don't like the Federer things), pick Nadal.
*I have great respect for Federer sticking by his girl in spite of the fame and money. And she's not unattractive. I just find it surprising that a guy as into himself as RF doesn't flood his box with bombshell gold-diggers. Classy move, Rog. But it doesn't redeem you for choking every time a worthy opponent gives you a decent match.
Check back soon for an addendum regarding why Rod Laver might be the greatest tennis player of all time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
