text:
Articles 201-240
Outfield Lot Acres [236]
Author: Roger Lea	(SCLHRG)
The Warden and Society of Sutton, incorporated by Royal Charter in 1528, governed a population of less than 1000 and an area of about twenty square miles. Less than one third of this area was occupied by fields or houses, the rest (apart from Sutton Park), being open common land. As population grew in the sixteenth century, and more and more people were exercising their rights on the commons, regulations and bye-laws were introduced to prevent misuse, but in 1617 a law-suit against the Warden and Society resulted in a Decree of the Court of Chancery.
The Court found that the Warden and Society had done nothing wrong, but set out some rules for the use of parts of the commons for tillage: every householder in Sutton was entitled to an acre of common land, to cultivate for five years; at the end of five years that acre reverted to common, and a different acre could be had. The traditional practice of ploughing up of parts of the commons for a few seasons of crops was thus formalised, and every fifth year afterwards the Warden and Society set out the acres to be tilled for the next five years and arranged for each householder to draw a lottery ticket to determine which acre would be his.
The Warden and Society secured a ruling from the Lord Chancellor in 1682 forbidding any further destruction of the commons. However, this injunction also forbade any cultivation of the commons, and in 1683 a petition to the Lord Chancellor, asking for the injunction to be modified so that the system of lot acres could continue, was drawn up and signed by 145 of the 'most substantial freeholders and inhabitants'. The petition notes that "all tillage upon the said commons and waste ground hath been forborne ever since the said injunction was granted to the great loss and prejudice of all the inhabitants in general and almost to the utter ruin and undoing of the poorer sort of people for want of corn".
Lot acres were highly prized, and the Warden's proceedings were closely watched. In 1725 (the earliest year for which a record survives) the Warden, Peter Kinnersley, followed the usual routine. The minutes for January 7th show that parts of the northern commons would be set out for the inhabitants of Hill and Little Sutton (approximately modern Four Oaks Ward), the Great Sutton (Trinity Ward) acres would be set out on Hither Withy Hill and Hither Lindridge, while those for Ashfurlong, Beyond the Wood, Maney and The Wylde would be in the Eachelhurst Field. However, trouble was in store - Maney and the Wylde folk were incensed because they were only allowed to draw their tickets after Ashfurlong and beyond the Wood had drawn theirs, and threatened court action "for denying and refusing the inhabitants of Maney to draw for acres in a field there called Eachelhurst till Ashfurlong Quarter Walmley and Beyond the Wood were served."
Peter Kinnersley looked into "the old ledger book" (long lost, alas) and found that his method had always been used except when Mr. Sedgwick was Warden (1695) - Mr. Sedgwick lived at Wylde Green. The dispute was quickly resolved - everyone wanted to get ploughing and planting.
Every stretch of common had a name, and a local person knew where Bradnocks Hayes ended and Hawkshurst Field began, for example, although there was nothing to mark the difference. The lot acres for Great Sutton were usually set out in Withy Hill Field and Lindridge Field, the nearest commons to the town centre.
Withy Hill Road - 200 years ago this was open common - Hither and Further Withy Hill, with Lindridge Field to the right.
Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked the Group will be pleased to remedy any omission at the first opportunity. The Group acknowledges the assistance of Sutton Coldfield Reference Library in providing access to documents and for permission to include photographs from their archives, on this site.
Articles 1-40
Articles 41-80
Articles 81-120


text:
Q: SQL Server Meta model I apologize if this is not a suitable place for such question but I have exhausted Google trying to find out the correct design pattern for a particular table I have to design in my database.  Let me paint the picture for you I have one table called Activities which has the following this is just a snap shop in total it has 102 entries

The user when signing up has the option to select as many of the activities he or she participates in, the issue I'm trying to crack is how to design such a table that stores this information in, I could go and create a table which has 102 columns which would look like the following again this is a snapshot

From what I know about SQL it's frowned upon having such large tables i.e X amount of columns I personally do not want to create a table which is 102 columns long due to the fact as time progresses more activities may be added which would result in this particular table growing even more and to a point where it would be hard to work with, I am only interested in storing the activities the user has selected in to the database.
So I'm seeking some SQL Guru's opinions on the matter, I have heard of the Meta model design pattern in SQL (not sure if that's the correct name for it).  I tried Googling for an example but it turned out zero results which gave me the impression the pattern is not called that.
I'd appreciated all the feedback given.

A: Go with relationship
3 tables
-users (user_id,....)
-activities(activity_id, activity_name,...)
-UserActivities(user_id, Activity_id)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


When it comes to building a workforce that operates more like a team, you have a variety of options that you can consider. Augmenting the team mentality in your office carries a number of advantages, including reducing employee turnover and potentially even increasing profits. One option to consider for building your team is to collectively train for, and participate in, a half-marathon. Obviously, this isn't something that you'll accomplish overnight, but working toward this goal as a workforce can lead to a number of positive things. Here are some reasons that this is a good idea to pursue.
Patience is a valuable asset in any workforce. Those who expect immediate results can often get frustrated when the results they want do not appear, and this can lead to a host of problems. For non-runners, building up to take part in a half-marathon is something that will likely take months. While each employee will have to practice on his or her own, you can also schedule perhaps one or two running sessions a week. During these sessions, your workforce will not only get a chance to get to know one another in a non-working environment, but also remember how progress can take time.
Workplace health is an important topic for many employers. Healthy employees are theoretically less likely to have extended absences from work for illnesses, and may even have more energy. By training for the half-marathon, it's reasonable to expect that your employees will put more of an emphasis on their health. They'll likely be exercising more, and may also strive to eat healthier. In many cases, employees will form bonds with one another through getting healthier. As an employer, you want your workforce to be as healthy as possible, and training for a half-marathon together is one way to get there.
For many runners, being able to work up to competing in a half-marathon is a major accomplishment. This can be advantageous for a workforce, because it shows that anything is possible when your minds are set. Your staff will ideally carry this mentality into their jobs. For example, someone may have thought that he or she could never be ready to compete in a half-marathon, but dedicated training will show this belief to be untrue. In the workplace, a sales person who perhaps doesn't think that he or she could possibly land a major client could remember the accomplishment of the half-marathon and believe that he or she can accomplish this goal, too.


text:
Printice Gary
Printice is the founding partner and CEO of Carleton Residential Properties, a real estate company engaged in investing, developing, general contracting, and asset management throughout the Southwest. Since 1991 Carleton has completed more than 20,000 units with the Carleton Partners and co-investors as principals, as well as for third party accounts. Under his leadership, the organization has grown to over $100 million in annual revenues and has distinguished itself as a quality market rate housing developer as well as a major producer of affordable housing.
Gary's other business experience includes investment banking at Piper Jaffray & Hopwood; mortgage banking and homebuilding at Centex Corporation where he was a Division President producing more than 14,000 units of single family housing during his eight year tour; and multi-family development as a Partner with Trammell Crow Residential.
He served on city and state housing task forces, boards, and commissions and was a board member of the Dallas Real Estate Council He serves as a board member of the National Equity Fund, Inc., a major tax credit syndication and asset management company based in Chicago.
Gary is a graduate of Carleton College with an A.B. in Economics and served as a Trustee of the College. He also holds an MBA from The Graduate School of Business Administration at Harvard University.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Athletes compete in the 2015 race. Photo: Rocky...
Why Has Ironman Coeur d'Alene Lost Its Popularity?
Susan Lacke Feb 17, 2016
Entries for the summer race are still available. And that's anomalous.
Historically, Ironman Coeur d'Alene has been one of the hottest tickets on the Ironman circuit. The race, known for beautiful scenery and enthusiastic crowd support, is a favorite of U.S. competitors, causing it to sell out quickly every year.
However, registration numbers for the 2016 event have been lagging, prompting Ironman to extend 25 additional slots for the World Championship event in Kona to encourage participation in Coeur d'Alene. A date change, concerns over weather, and economic woes are possible factors in registration tracking behind what's normal for the race.
Historically held in late June, the Coeur d'Alene event was once the early-season choice of athletes looking to avoid training in the heat of summer. When Ironman renewed its contract with the Coeur d'Alene's Chamber of Commerce for 2016-2020, however, it was announced that the full Ironman would be pushed back to August and a 70.3 event added to the calendar for June.
"Ironman Coeur d'Alene's new late-summer race date will feature milder temperatures and with its new August race date, will now serve as the final Kona qualifying event on the race calendar," says Dan Berglund, Community Relations Manager for Ironman. "It's an iconic race, and the additional slots give athletes a few more opportunities for their last chance to qualify for the Ironman World Championship."
Some athletes, however, aren't sold on the prospect of fairer weather in August, especially given Coeur d'Alene's history of unpredictable weather and late season heat.
"I did Ironman Coeur d'Alene in 2009 when it was really cold and wet. People were running/walking with the space blankets," says age-group athlete Shawn Phillips. "I did it again in 2012 and it was absolutely perfect weather. Then I did it in 2015 when it reached a record high of 105 degrees."
While weather is always a bit of a wild card, August actually tends to be hotter. According to Accuweather, the historical average high for June 25 is 74 degrees Fahrenheit; on August 21, the average high is 82 degrees.
Another factor potentially coming in to play is the Canadian economy. Coeur d'Alene, which is only 90 miles away from the U.S.-Canada border, has seen a large share of Canadian participants in the past. However, with the Canadian dollar recently hitting an 11-year low, many athletes to the north may be more hesitant to cross the border to race.
"I am from Calgary, Alberta so the USD/CDN exchange does have a bit of an impact on my decisions," says age-group athlete Carla Jackman, who participated in Ironman Coeur d'Alene in 2015.
The date change may also not be ideal for athletes with families whose children are already back to school by August.
For athletes like Jackie McCarthy, however, the changes are a benefit, not a detriment:
"The move from June to August was a huge factor in motivating me to sign up for Ironman Coeur d'Alene. The June race date required a mileage build-up pretty early in the season, which for me, living in DC and Boston, meant lots of long, chilly rides and runs."
The later date and higher temperatures will also be conductive to a warmer swim in Lake Coeur d'Alene, which is usually in the mid-to-high 50s in June and increases approximately ten degrees by August. Some athletes are also excited about the addition of the 70.3 event in June, which allows for familiarity with the course before taking on the full event in August.
"The date change of Ironman Coeur d'Alene has been received very well," says Berglund, because "it gives athletes more time to train in the warmer summer months to get ready for the race. They are also excited about having warmer water to swim in on race day," says Berglund.
"Overall, it is a great race, in a nice part of the country and a nice little city," says Phillips. "I will watch and see how much the weather really changes from the move."
RELATED: Coeur d'Alene Moves Future Ironmans To August, Adds 70.3
2,000 Athletes Set To Battle Heat At Ironman Coeur d'Alene


After a week spent adventuring – hiking, rafting, beach walking, wine tasting – with family visiting from the East, we needed a short hike in a new area to regain our senses. Eagle Mountain seemed like a good choice (Hike #83 in Bernstein & Urness's Hiking Southern Oregon (2014)). The peak can be reached via the Kalmiopsis Rim Trail #1124, sits just west of the Kalmiopsis Wilderness, and so would give us a chance to see how the wilderness looked 10+ years after its devastation by the 2002 Biscuit Fire. One of my few regrets in this life (other than not buying Apple shares in 1992 for $5 each) is not having found the time to visit this wilderness before the Biscuit Fire, despite having driven past it numerous times. A hiker's mea culpa for sure. The Kalmiopsis Rim Trailhead was readily accessible via 12 miles of good gravel Forest Road 4201 [which is also access to the popular Babyfoot Lake trailhead and the trail down to the Chetco River] but seemed a little naked.
it didn't dissuade us from heading down the trail through the forest.
The trail soon passed out of the snags and we could see Whetstone Butte in the distance, under the requisite bluebird skies.
This part of the trail runs along the rocky, open part of the ridge, with expansive views all around and different colors of serpentine under foot.
The Rim trail goes to the west of Whetstone Butte, then over Eagle Mountain, and used to continue on to Pearsoll Peak but the fire did heavy damage to that part of the trail.
then down the trail along its west side.
It's our understanding that local volunteers have labored to keep this trail open and they've done a good job on the southern half below Whetstone but it's been awhile since anyone got to the second half.
and were able to continue our climb to Eagle's summit on rocky, open slopes.
we got an expansive view to the west of the almost 500,000 acres burned by the Biscuit Fire. Its burn severity was highest in this area of the wilderness.
500,000 was just a number until we looked southwest from summit into the heart of the wilderness, with its mile after mile of burned, dead trees.
with its still extant fire lookout. The cupola style lookout from the 1920s was replaced by the present L-4 style structure in 1954. In 1994, the Illinois Valley Ranger District and the Sand Mountain Society completed restoration of this structure.


HomebollywoodSanjana Sanghi Wiki, Bio, Age, Movies, Ads, Instagram and more.
It's time for the debut of Sanjana Sanghi. But, she is already a very famous personality. You must have seen her cameos in Blockbuster movies like Rockstar, Hindi Medium and Fukrey Returns. There is so much we have to share about this dazzling actress. In this article, we will share with you Sanjana Saghi Wiki, Bio, Age, Movies, Education and some special moments from her life.
Age- Sanjana is 22 years old. Born on 2nd September 1996. Her Zodiac sign is Virgo.
She belongs to a very well to do family. Her father, Sandeep Sanghi is a businessman and her mother, Shagun Sanghi is a home-maker. Her brother, Sumer Sanghi is also doing well. He works at Google.
Sanjana was born and brought up in Delhi, India. She did her schooling from the famous Modern School in New Delhi.
She was a very bright kid and did very well in her Class Xiith. In fact, she was appreciated by the then HRD minister – Smriti Zubin Irani for her outstanding performance in board exams.
This was not it. After this, she got admission in Lady Sri Ram College Of Commerce (SRCC), Delhi University. She pursued the course of Journalism and Mass Communication. Even at SRCC, she passed out with flying colors.
The upcoming and talented actress is also fitness conscious. She is tall, slim and has unique and distinctive features.
Her height is approximately 5.6 Feet and she weighs around 56 Kgs.
Remember Nargis Fakhri's sister in Rockstar? That's our girl Sanjana Sanghi. She was just a school going kid at that time and impressed everyone with her performance. That role opened many gates for her. She also became a very popular kid at school. She is the pride of Modern School, New Delhi.
There were 20,000 girls who auditioned for the role on Mandy in Rockstar.
Despite all this stardom, she managed to get excellent marks in her board exams.
She played the role of young Meeta (younger saba Qamar) in the film. Remember?
She was there in the scene where Hunny (Pulkit Samrat) arranges a blind date for Choocha "Varun Sharma". Sanjana was seen in a cameo where she met Choocha in the Zoo!
She landed this role because of her amazing past track record. Sanjana landed the role in the movie rockstar by giving an audition. It was the casting director Mukesh Chabbra who took her audition back then and shortlisted her for the role. The Fault in our stars is going to mark the filmmaking debut of Mukesh Chabbra, who is a very well known casting director along with Sanjana who is going to play the lead role for the 1st time in a Bollywood movie. There was a tough competition between Nupur and Sanjana. Finally, Sanjana was short-listed.
Related- Who is Nupur Sanon?
She had no connections in the film industry when she landed the role of "Mandy" in Rockstar.
She was on cloud nine on being selected for The Fault In Our Stars Hindi remake because it is her all-time favorite movie.
Our highly educated future celebrity did her internship from BBC World News while studying at SRCC.
Sanjana Sanghi is a very confident public speaker and has given speeches at many international events.
Apart from being a phenomenal actress and a class topper, Sanjana also managed to become a professional Kathak and Jazz dancer.
Traveling helps her relax. Her favorite destination is the Maldives.
She has been a big fan of Ranbir Kapoor and wants to do a movie with him in the near future.


Used to clean tube sheet holes before insertion of tubes.
To clean tube sheet bores, prior to tube installation.
Can be used with any standard pneumatic or electric drill.
Available in Carbon Steel, Stainless Steel and Brass.


text:
package org.spongepowered.api.plugin;

import org.slf4j.Logger;
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;

import java.util.Optional;

/**
 * A wrapper around a class marked with an {@link Plugin} annotation to retrieve
 * information from the annotation for easier use.
 */
public interface PluginContainer {

    /**
     * Gets the id of the {@link Plugin} within this container.
     *
     * @return The id
     */
    String getId();

    /**
     * Gets the name of the {@link Plugin} within this container.
     *
     * @return The name
     */
    String getName();

    /**
     * Gets the version of the {@link Plugin} within this container.
     *
     * @return The name
     */
    String getVersion();

    /**
     * Returns the assigned logger to this {@link Plugin}.
     *
     * @return The assigned logger
     */
    default Logger getLogger() {
        return LoggerFactory.getLogger(getId());
    }

    /**
     * Returns the created instance of {@link Plugin} if it is available.
     *
     * @return The instance if available
     */
    Optional<Object> getInstance();

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Share the post "Myriam Borg's Refund Consulting Program (Changes Lives For The Better)"
Having a child and being a responsible parent is oftentimes the most difficult of tasks, and yet the most rewarding and fulfilling experience a person can have.
There are numerous ways a person becomes a parent; by giving birth, fostering, third party reproduction, adoption, etc. But none of them are an easy thing to do because becoming a parent requires huge responsibility and transition on a person's lifestyle. One big reason that most people are not prepared for being a great parent because it is the beginning of you putting someone else's needs above your own and having more financial obligations and acting in a way as to have responsible parenting.
This way every parent tries different ways to achieve greater financial stability and continuously searches for better opportunities or even considers starting in business.
Almost, all parents have these need to better their family's financial future, to plan for their family and regardless of how hard and stressful it can be… However, did you know that there are a million ways every working mum or dad can make money outside of the regular 9-to-5 grind? Or did not notice because you are overwhelmed by the job promotion possibilities, or feeling that you don't have the skills or training to be able to be your own boss and care for your family… Or let's just say you already have a business but still looking for an inspiration right now on how to make it thrive without compromising your current lifestyle?
Yes, that is the reality in parenthood; parents like Myriam Borg & many of us experiencing and can relate to that situation, even asking for those exact questions with same reasons why and yet until now still stuck, finding solutions and greater chances of opportunities… Why? Because it's not that easy and it is truly an art; juggling the commitments of full-time parenthood while growing a profitable small business.
who already had achieved that perfect work/life/financial success says' its now her turn to help and give back to new entrepreneurs. Her goal is to educate people like her 17 years ago, struggling with their life, trying to balance parenthood & financial success to change their lives for good… Myriam is very passionate to see many people grow their own successful business while they fulfill their best life ever that everyone deserves.
our world is full of opportunity and change… So, every person should have an opportunity to live an alternative way of life today, a life that fits with them the "best life with work-life balance with better financial freedom" and not like it was before "working in a traditional career, dedicates their whole life to the one company for fifty years then get a gold watch at retirement age".
is to create a path for parents to live a better quality of life as well as develop a business vehicle in order to improve their family's financial future.
– successful business woman living in New South Wales, Australia with her family who is a vocal advocate of work/life balance and living a life of greater freedom and flexibility through owning a portable business loves to travel now in different parts of the world and experiencing the beauty, food & people of it together with her family while successfully running her portable online business model – "Refund Consulting Business" which can only proved that her business is really a "Success".
Aside from that, Myriam's refund consulting business is well-known in the refund industry because it is fast-growing and never stop seeking new and better ways to produce, promote and deliver the company's best value. And she prides herself on launching this very helpful Refund Consulting Program of her which is now a huge dynamic sector in Australia that main goal everyday is also to help every Australians claim their lost & missing monies and assets.
So, what can Myriam really contribute to the entrepreneurs? How can her program help you manage and balance all demands in business while keeping their family still at the top of the priority lists?!
Right Now, Myriam Borg virtually runs her "Refund Consulting Program" whereas they unconditionally assist, educate and train each refund consultants on setting up their business startups, tools & system, right sales attitude and strategies plus a 24/7 customer support on refund consulting services.


2. In a large bowl combine eggs, pumpkin, sugar, oil and applesauce.
3. In another bowl whisk together flour, baking powder, cinnamon, baking soda, cardamom and salt. Add flour mixture to pumpkin mixture and mix until combined. Stir in ¾ cup chopped pecans. Spread batter evenly in a 15x10x1-inch pan (jelly roll pan).
4. Bake for 25 to 30 minutes or until a toothpick inserted in the center comes out clean. Cool on a wire rack. Top with Cream Cheese Frosting. Sprinkle with cinnamon and/or cardamom. Top with remaining ¼ cup chopped pecans. Makes 24 bars.
Cream Cheese Frosting: Beat together 8-ounces softened cream cheese, 1/4 cup softened butter, 1 teaspoon vanilla until creamy. Add 2 1/2 cups powdered sugar, a bit at a time, beating until smooth.
If you have any left, store in the fridge.


: Just How hot is Yad Soledes Bo anyway?
: Re:Re: Consumer alert:minhog scams on the rise!
: When does mixed swimming mean?
- Why don't we say &#quot;Asher Heini&#quot; by day?
$100,000 Check Found in Western Wall - NOT!!!
2 people with yahrzeit -- break up into 2 minyans?
30 Day Chazoko v'sain Brocho, etc.
41 years in the Midbar?
85 letters makes a sefer kadosh?


How productive is your Agri-business?
Using our diagnostic tool to measure your business drivers can improve its success.
We have developed a diagnostic tool to assist you and your senior team to measure your important business drivers. Metrics and KPIs are used to drive improvements and help businesses focus their people and resources on what's important. The diagnostic allows you to obtain an objective assessment and strategic report and allows for continuous own-assessment based on your own baseline. Contact us to find out more.


Two new exhibitions will challenge perceptions when Dead Centre and Stations of the Cross open at Geraldton Regional Art Gallery this Friday 20 April.
Dead Centre, a collection of photographic and video works that explores marginalised identities within the broader spectrum of multicultural Australian society, continues its tour after being exhibited at Alcoa Mandurah Art Gallery.
Stations of the Cross will return to GRAG, showcasing various pieces that offer unique and powerful interpretations on the meaning of Easter. The exhibition, which is curated by Claire Bushby, features works from both veteran and emerging Western Australian contemporary artists.
City of Greater Geraldton Mayor Shane Van Styn said he is thrilled Geraldton Regional Art Gallery is hosting these captivating exhibits.
"It's a pleasure to host these collections from such a high calibre of artists from here in Western Australia and around the country," he said.
Dead Centre is touring through ART ON THE MOVE and Stations of the Cross is a Perth Uniting Church show. Both exhibitions will officially open this Friday 20 April at 6pm and will run until 16 June.
Light refreshments will be provided at the opening. All community members are invited to attend the exhibition opening and the dress code for the evening is smart casual.
Artist Nathan Beard will also be delivering a free floor talk on Saturday 21 April from 10.30am through the free Act-Belong Commit Engagement Program presented by ART ON THE MOVE. His works are currently in display in Dead Centre and he has featured in Stations of the Cross 2017.
Picture Caption: Clare Peake, Untitled, 2018. Studio scraps, test pieces, failures and project remnants. Photographer: Tim Ognenis.


HELLO! And Welcome! I'm Danica. I'm a fine art portrait photographer located in the NW Illinois suburbs and service the surrounding Chicago area.
I'm married to my best friend and have two kind hearted children. A boy that is thoughtful and quiet but always clowning around at home and a girl that is sprightly, creative and full of life. Daily life is chaotic and messy at times but we always find the fun!
I have been passionate about photography since I was a teen and have remained so ever since my Grandfather (or Grampy as we called him) handed me my first camera. He was quite the photo enthusiast and always had a camera in hand. I am thankful that he shared his hobby with me which has now become such an important part of my life.
I am fortunate to share my love of photography with family, friends and all of you. Each session is unique and I aim to capture your family's personality.


text:
Умаризал () — микрорегион в Бразилии, входит в штат Риу-Гранди-ду-Норти. Составная часть мезорегиона Запад штата Риу-Гранди-ду-Норти. Население составляет 	64 984	 человека (на 2010 год). Площадь — 	1 621,113	 км². Плотность населения — 	40,09	 чел./км².

Демография
Согласно сведениям, собранным в ходе переписи 2010 г. Национальным институтом географии и статистики (IBGE), население микрорегиона составляет:

Статистика
 Валовой внутренний продукт на 2003 составляет 139 282 900,00 реалов (данные: Бразильский институт географии и статистики).
 Валовой внутренний продукт на душу населения на 2003 составляет 2205,97 реалов (данные: Бразильский институт географии и статистики).
 Индекс развития человеческого потенциала на 2000 составляет 0,651 (данные: Программа развития ООН).

Состав микрорегиона
В составе микрорегиона включены следующие муниципалитеты:
 Алмину-Афонсу
 Антониу-Мартинс
 Фрутуозу-Гомис
 Жуан-Диас
 Лукресия
 Мартинс
 Олью-д'Агуа-ду-Боржис
 Пату
 Рафаэл-Годейру
 Серринья-дус-Пинтус
 Умаризал

Микрорегионы штата Риу-Гранди-ду-Норти

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Why we should be cautious about cheering on Cyprus's no vote
Nikos Chrysoloras
The main demand of this week's 'parliamentary revolt' was that Cyprus remain an offshore tax haven
Wed 20 Mar 2013 11.35 EDT First published on Wed 20 Mar 2013 11.35 EDT
Cypriots protest outside the parliament in Nicosia. Photograph: Patrick Bazpatrick/AFP/Getty Images
Watching the drama unfolding in Cyprus over the last few days has been anything if not surreal. The far left and the Eurosceptic right alike have rejoiced at the Cypriot parliament's "valiant no" to a deal that would have ensured the financing of the cash-strapped economy from the eurozone and the IMF.
The detail they seem to miss is that Cypriots did not reject harsh austerity measures. These measures had already been agreed by the previous – supposedly communist – government of the island, and were approved by the current administration. It did not even revolt against an unjust levy on retail deposits. The eurozone had already signalled its agreement to spare small savers, on condition that assets belonging to foreign oligarchs and tycoons were subjected to a significant haircut (15.6%).
Indeed, it was the Cypriot government that rejected this option, in a dramatic 10-hour meeting of eurozone finance ministers last Friday, because it would damage the sprawling financial sector of the country. So the main demand of this "parliamentary revolt" was that Cyprus remain an offshore haven. In exchange, the Cypriot government seemed willing to offer so many concessions to Moscow as to effectively turn the island into a Russian overseas territory. Why anyone would celebrate this development is not clear.
In Brussels, meanwhile, the people managing the world's second largest economy showed once again a ridiculous lack of leadership. First, they concluded and defended a deal that would violate the sanctity of retail deposits. When the catastrophic consequences of this were pointed out to them, they started pointing the finger at one another. When they decided to backtrack, it was already too late.
It is true that the deal has so far caused chaos only in Cyprus – a small country that, according to Berlin, is "not systemically important". But markets and people know already that next time there is a crisis in Italy, Spain or elsewhere, the eurozone is willing to cross the Rubicon. This is a disaster of unimaginable proportions.
All this should not come as a surprise to anyone who follows the Brussels bubble. Suffice to say that the only reason that Jeroen Dijsselbloem was chosen to run the all-powerful Eurogroup (the council of finance ministers of the eurozone), is not his expertise, nor his ministerial experience, but the fact that he is Dutch. All other, more reliable, options were excluded because of their nationality.
So, how could the Cypriot crisis have been resolved? First of all, by allowing a bit more time: there was no reason whatsoever to ask a small nation to deliver almost 30% of its GDP upfront in cash in the space of three days. Such an outrageous request had not previously been made to any bailed-out country – it made a laughing stock of the island's pro-European government. Second, it was not Cypriot national debt that was unsustainable, but that of the country's banks. And there was a solution to that: after wiping out shareholders and junior bondholders, and imposing a haircut on senior bondholders, the European stability mechanism could have taken over the Cypriot banks. It could have then gradually shrunk them and put them on a resolution course, while giving Cyprus the time to recalibrate its finance-based economy. This option theoretically exists – it was decided by an EU summit last June – but the legal modalities are not there yet to implement it, because Germany has since changed its mind. Cyprus could, in exchange for this arrangement, securitise future revenues from its gas reserves and offer them as guarantees, together with a strict fiscal consolidation programme.
Two years ago, the European Central Bank could have decided to guarantee all sovereign bonds in the eurozone, like it did with its co-called "outright monetary transactions" programme last September, subject to the implementation of a stabilisation policy by the beneficiary countries. Instead, Greece's private debt was transferred to European taxpayers, causing animosity between the peoples of Europe. The country essentially defaulted, thus increasing uncertainty across the continent.
One thing is for certain: the eurozone, an aspiring global player, is offering up a Mediterranean outpost of strategic significance as a present to the Russians. It is just up to Moscow to decide whether it will accept it. And the Cypriot no will ridicule pro-European elites in Greece and elsewhere, as it will make it look as if there was an ideal solution that was simply ignored by "Merkel's puppets". By the time that people realise that this alternative is far from ideal, it may already be too late.
The question remains as to why all this is happening. Why are northern European countries acting as if they are set on destroying the eurozone, instead of fixing it? I don't believe in a sinister conspiracy at the heart of all this, but there does seem to be an unthinking, subconscious racism at play – which is just as destructive. The current political discourse implies that all wealth accumulated in northern Europe is the fair reward of a protestant work ethic, while wealth accumulated in the south is a product of corruption (Greece, Italy), tax evasion (Cyprus), or unsustainable business models (Spain). That is why southern European countries are being asked to change their economic models not through a gradual convergence process, but by violent shock.
The inconvenient truth, of course, is that it was not too long ago that Finland was almost bankrupt, and there are still people old enough to remember Germany's own debt restructuring. "Our finest and blondest friends" (as Blackadder put it) in the north should realise that not all depositors in their own bailed-out banks had paid their taxes. Most importantly, there is not a single academic study that denies that northern Europe has gained at least as much from the euro as the south. If politicians don't start to communicate this soon, then the eurozone will not only collapse, but the ghosts of the past will come to life.
Cyprus crisis: EU risks the unthinkable if bailout ultimatum fails
Larry Elliott, economics editor
As it was never envisaged that any country would leave the euro, the effects of such an exit would be felt worldwide
Cyprus bailout crisis: panic replaces anger as bankruptcy looms
Locals speak of situation worsening 'by the hour' in descent far more rapid than Greece's
Cyprus makes frantic effort to prevent run on its banks
Fears that cash will flood out of country when banks re-open as eurozone ministers discuss plan B in emergency conference call
UK-based Cypriots consider rescue fund amid bailout crisis
Prominent Greek Cypriots have met to discuss paying potentially substantial contributions to a national solidarity fund
Eurozone economies slow as major industry activity declines
Cyprus crisis: politicians race to agree details of 'plan B'
Cyprus woes deepen after ECB bailout ultimatum
Cyprus to keep banks shut into next week as it seeks deal to avert disaster


text:
Kobe Makes Pau Gasol Unhappy
Posted on March 14, 2010 by dberri
According to Adrian Wojnarowski (of Yahoo! Sports), Pau Gasol isn't happy. Gasol seems to think the Kobe Bryant is taking too many shots. Or more specifically, Gasol is not taking enough.
The Focus on Scoring Leads to Frustration
When we look at the data, we see that Gasol has a point. His per-game scoring average is at an all-time low. Kobe Bryant is also taking nearly 10 more field goal attempts per game than Gasol. And since scoring is the primary focus in the NBA, Gasol is now bemoaning his lack of touches.
Of course, one wonders if NBA players shouldn't be able to focus on more than scoring. After all, a player's impact on wins is about more than his points scored per game. As Table One reveals, when we look at everything in the box score, Gasol should be very happy. His WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] currently stands at 0.287. In contrast, Kobe's mark is only 0.185. So when we look beyond scoring, Gasol is doing more. Yet, Gasol is unhappy.
Table One: The LA Lakers after 66 games in 2009-10
This story highlights a problem with player evaluation in the NBA. Because so much attention is paid to scoring (and we see this when we look at the pay of free agents, voting for the All-Rookie team, allocation of minutes, and the NBA draft) players tend to obsess on their own shot attempts. And when those shots don't happen with the frequency the players prefer, unhappiness and resentment is the result.
The obvious solution to this problem is to teach players like Gasol that their impact goes beyond scoring. Coaches often try to teach this lesson. Much of what the players hear — and how players are rewarded — contradicts this story. Consequently, Kobe is considered one of the greatest players to ever play the game. And Gasol keeps expressing his frustration.
The Greatness of Kobe
Recently a few of the comments in this forum have once again focused on the issue of Kobe's greatness. Many people who comment here (and this is not a surprise), question the notion that Kobe is equal – or even close – to Michael Jordan. Some have also wondered where Kobe ranks in NBA history.
In an effort to address that issue, let's consider Table Two.
Table Two: The Best Performance by a Shooting Guard from 1977-78 to 2008-09
Table Two reports the 50 best performances – in terms of Wins Produced — by a shooting guard in the since the 1977-78 season. As one can see, the top seven slots in the list are held by Michael Jordan. And Kobe's very best season doesn't appear until the 27th slot. In all, Kobe appears three times on the list while MJ shows up 10 times. So Jordan was much better than Kobe. And really, the difference is very large (a point made back in 2007).
Kobe is also not number two on the list. Clyde Drexler appears four times before Kobe shows up the first time. Overall, eight of Drexler's seasons rank in the top 50 overall.
When we look at career Wins Produced, we see – as the following list indicates — that Kobe currently ranks 4th among shooting guards who started their career after 1977.
Michael Jordan: 283.6
Clyde Drexler: 222.8
Reggie Miller: 162.9
Kobe Bryant: 149.0
Again, the difference between Kobe and MJ is huge (and Kobe is never going to close the difference). It does seem likely, though, that Kobe will surpass Reggie Miller. But he needs to produce more than 60 additional wins to catch Drexler. And Kobe is already 31 years old. Yes, MJ did produce more than 70 wins after the age of 31. But as has already been noted, Kobe is no MJ; and it doesn't look like Kobe is Clyde the Glide either.
– DJ
The WoW Journal Comments Policy
Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.
The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score
Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:
Simple Models of Player Performance
Wins Produced vs. Win Score
What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say
Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics
Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.
Posted in: Basketball Stories
← Assigning Blame in Atlanta and Boston
An Instant Analysis of the 2010 NCAA Tournament →
81 Responses "Kobe Makes Pau Gasol Unhappy" →
Not that I necessarily think this is what Pau is trying to say, but shouldn't it be better for the Lakers, and not just himself, if he shoots more? He's a fairly efficient scorer, at least compared to Kobe, so shouldn't the Lakers win more if he shoots more?
diehardNFFLbarnone
Given how many minutes Kobe has played, I think Brandon Roy is likely to pass Miller first.
Kobe should need a little over a year to pass Miller, assuming he doesn't get injured. Unless Roy can produce ~100 wins in that time span, I think it's safe to say that Kobe will top Miller sooner…
ilikeflowers
That list just reminds me of how awesome pre-injury Tracy McGrady was. His stats and my eyeballs were on the same page. He was amazing to watch.
What Alex said. High efficiency Gasol > low efficiency Kobe.
That Wojnarowski article was way too sycophantic for me.
Man of Steele
Wow, I didn't realize that Clyde Drexler was so good. I guess I had thought of him as a high-scoring SG who was overrated. Even given how high we are on Tracy McGrady around here, Drexler was better, and for a much longer period of time. Forget the next Jordan, perhaps we should all be asking if Kobe/Dwayne Wade might be the next Clyde Drexler.
mrparker
I thought Drexler was a small forward. Did he play that for one season or something? I made a list of guards the other day and just assumed he was a small forward.
todd2
Also comparing apples to oranges to some degree in terms of career wins produced. Most of the guys on that list played a few years of college ball. Kobe should have an advantage in career stats because of his jump from high school.
Drexler played at the 2 in Portland and the 3 in Houston.
John Giagnorio
Wow, thanks for putting this up Dave! This is a wonderful reference to have against all the insane arguments in favor of Bryant. For what it's worth, when I proposed to a Lakers fan that Kobe Bryant was "more on Drexler's level than Jordan's" I was accused of being a "hater" :-p
Based on the (limited) analysis that I did, it looked like Drexler and McGrady were defensive stars and somewhat lesser offensive players. Jordan, of course, was amazing at both.
Johnny Y.
I don't see this as a case of scoring being overvalued by players/evaluators.
Its just more fun in general to score. When you play a pug at your local gym, does your average guy want to just rebound and defend? No, he wants to touch the ball occasionally and take some shots cause its fun to score. Gasol already got his extension so i doubt hes looking for more points just to increase his potential future value.
Lets face it, Kobe is one of the biggest blackholes in the nba. Balls come in, and rarely go out.
@ brian – here are my projections for Kobe Bryant and Brandon Roy through 2012-2013:
Kobe Bryant:
2010-2011 5.0 WP 0.113 WP48
Brandon Roy:
2010-2011 17.4 WP 0.277 WP48
Italian Stallion
I don't think Gasol's complaint is necessarily about his desire to score more points. I think he realizes that he and Bynum can score more efficiently in the paint than Kobe can score shooting from the perimeter (especially considering Kobe's occasionally suspect shot selection). I think Gasol's primary motivation is to make the team better. He realizes that means Kobe must be willing to sacrifice touches.
I should add, I totally agree with Gasol and argued along those lines in the previous thread.
Kobe has that "alpha dog" personality. It's an advantage to have a hyper confident player that wants the ball under fire, that can create for himself and others, that can take a game over late and score under heavy pressure, etc… However, a player like that has to learn to trust his teammates and make the higher percentage play when it's available.
Magic, Bird, Jordan and most of the other great players understood that. Even Lebron understands it despite being much younger and having so much less talent around him.
Kobe does not and never has.
Alvy
D. Berri,
I think Gasol is frustrated with how poorly Kobe Bryant is shooting, especially since he or Bynum could score much more efficiently. However, it's not about "scoring" when it comes to Gasol asking for possessions, it's mostly about initiating the offense, it's about running the offense from Gasol, not entirely to Gasol. In other words, going "inside out," passing to the cutters in the offense, or taking advantage of smaller front-courts. I think Gasol's scoring will go up giving more touches, of course, but it's simply not entirely about scoring more points (especially after signing a brand new contract).
I agree with IS. Here is a full quote from Gasol:
"I've always been a good post-up player, getting looks for myself, but also finding cutters, passing the ball out. It's a good way to attack. I've always been a big believer that you work the game from inside out, and it becomes easier".
It's not about more shots for Gasol, it's about using his skills. He's good passer and does very well with recognizing doubles and reacting to them.
I'd love to see what would happen if Lakers let Gasol increase his USG%. He has the same OffRtg as Bosh (118, top10 among players > 30mpg), but only 20% USG (while Bosh has 28%).
reservoirgod
Prof. Berri, thanks for the list. I thought Fat Lever played PG for Denver & Alvin Robertson played PG for San Antonio. I know this doesn't greatly impact their WP, but maybe it frees up spots on the list? Also, in the new book – do you discuss the high school players like Kobe & Garnett and how they age vs college players?
brgulker
I agree with others who think that Gasol shooting more and Kobe shooting less would be good for the Lakers overall, which seems to be Gasol's point.
Thanks for posting this, Dr. Berri. I always loved watching Drexler, but I didn't realize that he was so productive. Same for Reggie Miller. For whatever reason, I didn't realize that these two players were so productive throughout their careers.
Learn something new every day…
I think it's incredible Reggie Miller ranks 3rd in career wins produced, yet did not have a single top 50 season in wins producted. A testament to his consistency and longevity – in and of itself a form of greatness.
If true, would opponents benefit from focusing their defense more on stopping Pau, rather than Kobe?
diehardNFFLbarnone: I feel like you just pulled those numbers out of a hat. Any evidence that Roy will spike up in productivity *that* dramatically?? The trend is that after age 24, players tend to drop off slightly, and Roy is like 25 now I think. I agree that Roy will probably surpass Kobe eventually, though. And yes, Kobe is pretty overrated, but he's been pretty consistent throughout his career–even with his finger injury he's posting a 0.18 ish WP48, which is still pretty good. Even a 0.15 WP48 throughout the 10-11 year will put him a shade below Miller.
Bryant's strength really seems to be playing an ungodly amount of minutes at an excellent but not superstar level. Each time he appears on the list his WP48 is significantly lower than that of the players immediately preceding and following him.
I agree that gasol should get the ball more but Kobe behind reggie and drexler is bs. How many rings did they win? I'm not going to knock you're stats but shouldn't you use multiple different stats to evaluate a player. Picking one stat and using it to determine a players worth is ridiculous.
Kobe schmobe, what I take out of this is that Fat Lever was one of the most underrated players of all time. Look at that "best seasons by a shooting guard" list. Wow.
It's kind of ridiculous when people look at one statistical model and rank someone's legacy based on it. Wins produced? I think the real measure is how many championship rings a player has AND what their individual impact on the team was in winning those championships. Kobe has 4. If he reaches 6, then he's in the discussion with MJ. If he doesn't, then he's not. And don't say that Shaq was the reason Kobe won 3 of those rings, because Pippen was the reason MJ won 6. It doesn't take away from any of these players; basketball is a team sport.
Back to the discussion though, the offense should be run through Pau more using the triangle. I would love to see more dives to the basket by Artest too. Ariza got a lot of easy reverse layups that way. Our PGs need to make harder cuts into the lane and try to a) draw the defense away from Pau or b) get easy layups.
How did the players in the "Top Shooting Guard" performances table get classified?
* Fat Lever was a point guard.
* Brent Barry played point guard the year he made the list.
* Alvin Robertson was a point guard
* Rodney McCray was a small forward
* Paul Piece is a small forward
* David Thompson was a small forward
* Nate McMillan was a point guard
Interesting to note that neither Reggie Miller or Mitch Ritchmond, generally considered the two best shooting guards of the Jordan era not named Jordan or Drexler, made the list. One-dimensional scorers just don't create that many wins.
GQue
Typical Hit piece vs Kobes greatness. Very comical and another horrible post. Now you have Drexler and Reggie as better than Kobe. Both Drexler & Reggie would admit on live TV that Kobe is ahnds down the better overall player! Stats can be made to make almost any point or case. Ability, skill,talent, & will to be great can only betruely viewed by that players peers both from past & present.
Yes the media seem to have a problem with acknowledging Kobes greatness but his fans & peers understand the propaganda. Continue to make MJ's auroa untouchable until the NBA is fully ready to give LBJ all the praise for being best ever! Plain old bafoonery
Christian,
So Kobe has been the second or third most productive player on the Lakers for all of their titles. So you're argument is that Kobe is as good as Scottie Pippen? Probably not, but a much better argument.
GQue,
What fantasy land do you live in where Kobe's greatness is unacknowledged? It isn't the USA. I'm guessing that your real issue is the lack of unanimous acknowledgment. The point that all the 'advanced' stats sites make is that Kobe is great, yet overrated by the media.
Quotes of true genius:
'Stats can be made to make almost any point or case'
'Words can be made to make almost any point or case'
'Any idiot can make almost any point or case'.
So Christian, if Kobe gets another 3 rings, does that mean he will be in the conversation with Robert Horry?
Or could it be that rings aren't everything?
You think Shaq isnt the main reason for 3 of Kobes rings? How many Finals M.V.Ps did he win during the threepeat? As for Pippen being the reason for Jordans 6 titles…well that makes sense considering Pippen was a six time finals MVP winner…..oh wait.
Do coaches "often try and teach this lesson?" Perhaps they often try TO teach this lesson.
I think we have another "skills versus production" discussion.
It is absolutely possible that Bryant has more skills, more athletic abilities and more talent than Drexler or Miller. But the basketball isn't about skills and talent, but about production. I don't care how acrobatic are Bryant's baskets – all I care is how effective he is in using possessions.
And Bryant is very productive. Only Drexler and Miller were even more productive.
Funny thing – I've seen recently a diagram of Bryant's efficiency vs usage. It's flat. No matter how high or how low Kobe's usg% is – his OffRtg is constans. Unusual.
But it means that replacing some Kobe's possessions by Gasol's possessions would be good for Lakers.
In short words: Bryant could do amazing things, but sometimes it is better to not try anything amazing.
The main reason that this stat (and your analysis) is hard to swallow is that what your stat identifies as Kobe's "best" season, does not pass the smell test.
2005-2006 was Kobe dragging a D-league team to 45 wins. Does not appear on the list of 50 best seasons by a shooting guard at all? Really?
2001-2002 Kobe played the complementary guard perfectly and was widely considered to be his best year until the MVP year. Doesn't appear at all? Really?
And the MVP year appears only at 38, whereas his best year is 2001-2002, which Kobe himself would probably admit is not in his top 5 seasons of basketball.
Second off, your list seems to have great trouble identifying what a shooting guard actually is, which makes it all the less credible.
Anyways, I realize that the entire point of your post and your stat in general is that scoring is overrated and that large men who rebound and shoot from closer than 15 feet are what makes a team win, but when your points don't even pass the smell test, it doesn't make people stand back and re-evaluate what they know, it makes people just point and laugh and not take you seriously. This happened to Winston. You do not want to be in the same breath as Winston, as I'm sure you probably know.
Alex//
Smell test is useless. It just means you have your conclusion already and looking to justify what your nose has already told you.
And the 05-06 Lakers weren't that bad. Odom has consistently been a very good win producer, and guys like Smush Parker and Luke Walton all held their own. The current team's much better with the addition of Bynum and Gasol, but otherwise, that team in 05-06 was far from being all-Kobe.
Tindall
Kwame Brown and Smush Parker are either fat, out of the league, or both at this point. Yet both posted respectable numbers on those Lakers teams – could it be that playing next to Kobe made them better? And what about Luke Walton? His Wp48 is not what it used to be. Have injuries prematurely reduced his productivity, or was playing with a tremendous shooting guard a part of his success?
'Anyways, I realize that the entire point of your post and your stat in general is that scoring is overrated…'
This statement is false. The point is that inefficient scoring is overrated. Which seems like a simple concept, but apparently isn't.
'…and that large men who rebound and shoot from closer than 15 feet are what makes a team win'
They are closer to basket, thus they get the lion's share of the high-percentage shots and they get the possessions (if they're big/tall enough). This is the low-hanging fruit – this is where it's easiest to be efficient. What's hard to accept about this? Maybe they are generally less skillful than a less productive SG, but you can't teach size and it counts – a lot.
Curiously, until Jordan came along this was what the coaches and sportswriters thought as well. And of course after Jordan we see that all of the champion's best players were big men with the exception of Miami and Wade's truly Jordanesque performance. Of course San Antonio has recieved tremendous production out of Ginobili as well – which even eyeballs could see. And to give credit where credit is due, Kobe was essentially just as important as Gasol last year, although those Lakers were an unusually egalitarian team.
Tindall//
It has been mentioned before, but Kwame's best season did not come with the Lakers. Smush Parker was indeed best playing with Kobe but his rookie year numbers suggests he was very capable of playing at that level. I wonder what gotten to him?
And you haven't mentioned how Pau Gasol and Ron Artest aren't playing with Kobe than they used to do. On average, there's very little evidence that Kobe, or most other players, improve their teammates.
that should be "Pau Gasol and Ron Artest aren't playing better with Kobe than they used to do before coming to the Lakers. "
khandor
Although Clyde Drexler and Reggie Miller were "more productive" players, according to their individual numbers, than Kobe Bryant has been, to this point in his career, it would be a serious mistake in basketball acumen to claim that either Drexler or Miller was, in fact, a "better/superior" basketball player, in comparison with Bryant.
"Better and superior" are qualitative terms of assessment; while, "more [or less] productive" is a quantitative measure.
The 05-06 Lakers absolutely were terrible. You are looking at it from a stat only point of view. The 2nd best player (Odom) mailed in roughly 40 games that year. But hey, he stayed (mostly) healthy and kept piling up rebounds and he was on the floor with Kobe so he accumulated win shares by accident. Smush Parker went from "playing decently alongside Kobe" to "out of the league" just like that. Luke Walton is an embarrassment of an NBA player and only accumulated stats because he happened to be standing on the court and was guarded roughly 30% of the time. Kwame Brown…enough said.
I realize that the entire point of the advanced stat movement is to get attention and you need outrageous claims to do that, but try saying that the 05-06 Lakers outside of Kobe "weren't that bad" and see how far that gets you. The biggest problem with the advanced stat movement is how insulated it is. You believe something is right only because the rest of your small world agree with it. Reality is over that way.
"Enough said" is correct. You do realise Kwame Brown had better seasons other places right?
Obviously box score-based stats have its limitation, but how is advances stat movement is more "insulated" than the common wisdom where things just…"are" because people claim they "just know" by looking at things?
no, people believe in the advanced stats because they tend to predict things better than the naked eye can (and also because the results are easily reproducible). Alex, all your statements are predicated on your previous opinions of how good the various Laker players were, but when doing analysis we should always go back to the empirical evidence–eFG%, rebounds, assists, TO's, steals, etc–and *not* our old conclusions. The current model takes those numbers and more for the past 30-ish years, makes no subjective assumptions about what should make a player good, and regresses them to team wins/eff differential before making any conclusions about what should and should not lead to wins. We can tell it's good-but not perfect- because simply by following the Win Score formula (a rough estimate of player productivity) and evaluating it for each player on a team, we automagically end up with a number that ends up strikingly close to the actual number of wins. And at the end of the day, all we care about is winning (games, championships…)
jbrett
Chris Yeh:
Brent Barry shared the backcourt with Gary Payton; who was the point guard, again? Alvin Robertson's best year in San Antonio was with Johnny Moore; no question who ran the offense. In Milwaukee, he played with Paul Pressey–the original 'point forward,' remember?
You're dead on about Lever and McMillan, and you left out Richardson; all point guards. I agree with you about McCray and Pierce, and disagree on Thompson.
Interesting what conclusions can be drawn with those changes. MJ is the only SG with a WP48 over .350 in over thirty years. And Kobe is in the top ten, but clearly behind guys like Drexler and Moncrief. Anyone who doubts he has a spectacular skill set is not paying attention; anyone who thinks he has used those skills to produce like MJ is delusional. He's great at what he does–but he doesn't do what MJ did. I'm a Laker fan; if Kobe and MJ came into the league together, and you offered me that trade at ANY point, my only question would be how many first-round draft picks I had to throw in.
I'll throw another idea out there: Several SG have had a more productive PEAK season, or handful of peak seasons, than Kobe; however, on a career basis, he has been far more consistent. So where is the tipping point? How good does someone have to be, and for how long, to be preferable to Kobe's 10-plus steady, highly productive, but measurably less than spectacular years? Factoring in his evident need to be the alpha dog would seem necessary. Certainly the makeup of the roster would be a factor; Dave's observation that few championship teams lack a .300 WP48 player must be taken into account.
MJ and Clyde have to be above Kobe on any kind of team. Moncrief and his 5-6 great, healthy years? I say yes. Wade? Too soon to be sure, but maybe. McGrady? No way. Put him in one place, and maybe you get more consistency–or maybe there's a reason teams trade him away. Robertson, Ginobili? Moncrief lite–maybe too lite. Who else?
So, is Kobe in the top 4-5 SG of the last 30-plus years? Probably, lo0king at the whole career. Can you win a title with him? Helps to have two other guys with the same kind of production, but yes. Does the ability to be clutch in crunch-time bump him up the list? Maybe a little; I'm not one of the myriad disciples of the 'shot-creators have value that can't be measured' school who post here–but there is certainly value in making shots that win games.
So who's better right now? Wade has been better some years, worse others; if you knew he would be healthy, you'd take him first. Roy is younger, and his peak potential looks promising, but there's a lot that remains to be seen. Kobe, while clearly on the downhill side, is still pretty good, and still strikes fear in opponents.
My Mount Rushmore of modern (post '77) SG, total body of work? MJ, Clyde, The Squid, and The Mamba, in that order. Someone playing now could replace him; wouldn't surprise me. But I will suggest that:
A) Kobe is very, very good;
B) He is also very overrated in some circles; and
C) His overrated-ness is also exaggerated (see A, above).
Do I wish his amazing skills resulted in greater production? Sure, but to suggest he had the capability to be greater requires an explanation of how–and possibly a belief in transformation that would border on mystical.
Anybody think maybe Bryant's knee injury in 2003 (surgery summer '04 prior to the alleged rape) messed up his game? He was way more of an all-around producer in 2003, I believe (and table two agrees) that 2003 was his best season. 2004-present he becomes much more of a volume scorer and less of an all-around presence.
jbrett,
"Anyone who doubts he has a spectacular skill set is not paying attention; anyone who thinks he has used those skills to produce like MJ is delusional. He's great at what he does–but he doesn't do what MJ did."
Fantastic stuff.
As a parallel, I think of Baron Davis; which players are more skilled than him? But for whatever reason – lack of motivation, poor decision making, etc – he has never consistently been an elite PG. But think about players like Billups and Kidd. They're "skilled" players, but not spectacularly so. They are consistently good decision makers. And they're always still playing games in May.
The difference between Davis and Kidd/Billups is far more pronounced than that between Kobe and Jordan, and I'll say to Kobe's credit that motivation has never been an issue for him. But Jordan's still on a whole other level, and you do a fantastic job of explaining why.
Smush was out of the league because he was a mediocre player (no matter where he was playing) and clashed with Pat Riley, a notoriously less flexible coach than Phil Jackson. It was about temperament, not lack of ability or productivity.
Are we supposed to believe that Kobe's prodigious scoring kept Smush from being a headcase?
jbrett just won this thread.
There's no question that Kobe has the physical toolset that MJ had. It's eerily similar and obvious to anyone who's seen them both play.
But Kobe just doesn't do as much with his talent on a consistent basis, which is why he hasn't produced as much over the course of his career.
I don't know why this is the case. He has the same coach, the same system, and a better supporting cast.
This idea that people should put Kobe ahead of others because he's won more championships is a case looking at facts without also examining the context behind them.
Yes, Kobe is great player. For my money he's a top-20 player of all time and a top-3 shooting guard. However he was 2nd fiddle to Shaq's leading act in the Lakers' threepeat.
When Kobe got the chance to lead the team by himself he failed to get them to the playoffs the first year, lost in the first round the next year (his famous Game 7 disappearing act) and then bitched and whined about getting traded during that offseason.
He came into that season and nobody even gave them a shot to win a championship until they added Gasol at which point they became legitimate contenders. Obviously last year they won as we all know, with the most talented team in the NBA.
The fact of the matter is Kobe may have been the "franchise"player, but they won because nobody could match up with a frontcourt of Bynum, Gasol and Odom, not to mention some clutch plays made by Ariza.
In contrast a player like Drexler only won one championship, but he also played during the great Lakers, Celtics dynasties of the 80's, the Pistons after that and then MJ's Bulls.
Considering the good, but middling talent that surrounded Clyde in Portland it's quite an achievement he had the success he had of even getting them to a Finals.
Clyde got his ring alongside Olajuwon in 1995
when he was traded to the Rockets mid-season.
Great big men win over great guard play, MJ withstanding. Kobe has had the great fortune of playing alongside the most dominant big man of his time in Shaq and a trio of talented big men on the current Lakers team.
Is Kobe a great player yes, but to say he's better because of more rings without examining the context behind it is foolish. It would be like saying Robert Horry is a greater player than Kobe Bryant because he won 7 rings and Kobe's only won 4.
Speaking of Olajuwon, has his productivity ever been discussed here (or elsewhere)?
He was my all-time favorite big man in terms of entertainment value (and I would argue overall skill), but I've never seen his productivity stacked up against other great big men.
brgulker,
https://dberri.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/ewing-or-olajuwon-who-was-better/
Olajuwon had three seasons right around 0.400.
Megalo Arenas
Interesting list, I knew Kobe was not nearly as productive as MJ, but some of the names on that list are new to me, such as Sidney Moncrief and Michael Ray Richardson.
Im very interested in a list involving the power forwards.
Another post of interest is
https://dberri.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/the-best-nba-center-in-my-student%E2%80%99s-life/
where David Robinson takes the crown and people are unhappy :D
Thanks, guys. I'll read those tonight.
For those who claim Kobe has the same skillset as Jordan please watch this comparison video for a small sample of why that is simply not true. The video is 2 minutes long.
dberri
How do you imbed a video into the comments?
and i didnt mean to link the video in the comments…i have no idea how i did that…i apologize to the prof is that is against the rules
I can understand people getting upset over David Robinson's ranking, but they should remember that his ranking is based on the regular season, not the post-season where he regularly under-performed.
What rules? I just had no idea how one did something like this.
It looks like all you have to do is paste the link from YouTube and the browser will take care of the rest.
Testing, 1, 2, 3…
My browser is Firefox … I did some googling, and I think it might actually be WordPress, not the browser, that embeds the video automatically.
I'm not 100% though.
Prof,
I hadn't seen videos imbedded before. I didn't want to be the first to start something that might take away from the idea of the site.
Very cool!!! New assignment for all readers. Find the video that supports the post.
Then again… I suppose it is just as easy to do this for the post.
Cmon brgulker, no one wants to see that stuff ;)
There are so many things wrong here that I can't even begin to hit everything, but let's start at the top.
1) Stats CAN in fact tell whatever story you want them to tell. Let me prove that to you. Here are stats that show Kobe can and has outperformed both Drexler and Miller.
a) PER. Drexler's best season PER wise is a 24.1 in 87-88. Kobe has SIX seasons that top that. Reggie Miller's best season PER wise is a 21.2. Kobe tops that every year of his career besides the 1st 3. Reggie's best years only top Kobe's absolute worst!
b) Offensive win shares. Kobe has three years in double digits. Drexler has ZERO. Miller has two. Drexler's best year would be Kobe's 5th best year. Clyde tops Kobe overall because he racks up higher DWS. The only reason this is true is because DWS overrates defensive rebounds. The win share stat seems to believe that scoring is a fungible commodity but makes no such distinction on rebounding which is even more fungible!
Side note: Let's quickly go over how ludicrous it is that Clyde should be on Kobe's level as far as contributing to a win defensively. How many years of Drexler on the All NBA 1st team defensively. Hm…that's funny, it's 0! How many years of Drexler on the All NBA 2nd team defensively. Why that's funny, there are none here either! The stat of defensive win shares does not actually measure DEFENSE, it just rewarded Drexler because he picked up rebounds. You should call this "rebound shares" instead of defensive win shares because if it screwed up this badly, it doesn't measure defense at all!
By the stats I just showed you, Drexler doesn't match up with Kobe in the slightest. Miller makes a somewhat better case, but Kobe destroys him on both ends of the court. And we haven't even gotten into the playoffs, where Kobe crushes both of them in any measure you like.
So yes. Stats can be juggled to prove anything you want.
As far as Smush Parker goes, if he could play, he would have gotten minutes on somebody's team. The only years he tallied higher than a 0.1 in win shares were the years he was on the Lakers. He started 162 games with the Lakers. He started 21 in the rest of his NBA career combined. He accumulated those win shares by virtue of standing on the court while Kobe was there and benefiting from not being guarded, same as Luke Walton did. Since this blog is a win share blog, I would like someone to prove to me that Smush was showing signs that he was capable of producing win shares without Kobe holding his hand. His best year without Kobe Bryant was a 0.1!!! Without Kobe, he had negative offensive win shares every year of his career!
In order to tear down Kobe Bryant, you all are trying to build up Smush Parker, Kwame Brown and Luke Walton, guys whose names are literally punchlines around the NBA and trying to say that they're "not that bad", but stats show that Smush Parker and Luke Walton aren't that bad, they're even worse. We can't do the same kind of analysis with Luke Walton since he hasn't been away from Kobe his entire life, but if the Lakers were to hypothetically release him, he likely wouldn't get another NBA job.
And Ashwin, tell me you aren't trying to say that Odom/Gasol/Bynum are why the Lakers won the title last year. Even stats wise (win shares, PER), Kobe beat Gasol and Odom. Bynum no showed the whole playoffs. You guys can't try to put everything on stats, then change your argument to "well this is the reason they REALLY won" when the stats don't suit you. Live by your sword, die by it. The eyes said Kobe was the star, the hardware said he was (M.V.P.), and even your precious stats say he was also.
Even if you want to use PER, Gasol, Kwame, Derek Fisher, Artest all had their best seasons elsewhere. In fact, Artest is enjoying easily his worst season ever. Shouldn't they all improve with the amazing Kobe?
About Smush Parker, if you take a look at his rookie season, it's very similar to what he did in the Lakers, especially the 2nd season. So yes, I'd say he showed the sign very early indeed.
As for the rest of the stuff, I have a feeling I have read similar stuff in 2006. Try your local library to at least understand the reasoning and justification behind dberri's method in his book.
Oh and one more thing to Ashwin. You want to say that Kobe played 2nd fiddle to Shaq throughout the 3peat years? Well, seems to me that in 2000-2001 (widely considered the best of the Lakers title teams and an all-time great team), Kobe edged Shaq in win shares. So since this is the win share blog, looks like Shaq was playing 2nd fiddle to Kobe on the greatest Laker team of the decade.
(Note: Is this true? Hell no, it isn't, but if the stats say it, it MUST be true! Yet another case of stats proving anything you want)
simon:
When you have to share the ball, your PER goes down unless you're a huge assist man. Out of Jordan's 5 highest PER seasons, only 1 came on a championship team and that was the 90-91 team where Jordan and Pip were basically on their own. Only Horace Grant cracked 14.0 in PER that year. Artest, Gasol, Kwame and Fish all had to share more with the Lakers than they did elsewhere.
But it's cool that you're cherrypicking, I can do that too. Hey, whatever happened to Trevor Ariza?
This brings me to yet another problem with the advanced stat community. You think that if someone disagrees with you, they just don't understand. Here's a newsflash for you, I understand, your methods are just flawed at best and ridiculous at worst. Instead of sticking your fingers in your ears when you're criticized, try tweaking your numbers so reality can get in.
14.0 in the Bulls example is a typo. Should read 15.0.
Exactly. You can always cherry pick and whether you use PER, WS or WP, but there's no evidence of Kobe improving other players.
And cherry picking is precisely why we like the advanced stats. dberri provides figures and formula(well, at least the logics on his book) on how the system was developed and what R2 value you can expect year to year on player production. Because, in case you haven't noticed, the system was derived from the "reality." i.e. it's based on regression analysis
Otherwise, you just fall into the logic of "I know player X is productive because he looks good to me (or smells nice ;) ) and other people agree with me."
And no, this blog is not a "win share blog," win share is another system which is more based on Dean Oliver's and Bill James' work. So although you insist that you "understand" it, but you don't even know exactly which system you're criticizing. Again, at least go to a local library and read the book.
I think (hope) you are employing a sarcasm too subtle for me; if not, and you are genuinely arguing for one player over another using PER, on THIS blog…well, you are still a very funny guy, just in a different way. The fact that you quote a statistical measure which has been debunked at length here, then refer to Kobe 'passing the eye test' without a hint of self-consciousness, is certainly daring.
As for the 'Kobe as Moses Malone' argument, with Smush and Luke as two of the four guys from Petersburg–I have to lump it in with the 'shot-creators have value to a team, even if it is entirely unmeasurable' school of thought. I might argue that those two benefited from Phil's coaching (one of the few coaches shown in studies to actually improve a team), or the triangle offense itself (interesting how many players fade to obscurity when they leave it).
jbrett//
Urg, you made my horrid writing look even worse there.
I should've mentioned before that one of very first things dberri mentions in his book is his position on the "laugh test," which is analogous to your "smell test," and it's explained more in depth there.
My overall point is that your stat has just as much validity as PER. Both have a real substantive problem with association != causation, which is somewhat inevitable when you deal with the sport of basketball. Team PER has value just like team WS has value. Association does not mean causation in either case. PER at least makes an effort though. A team of 5 high PER men will do better than a team of the 5 high WP48 men. This year at the halfway point you would have had Mike Miller as your 2!
Just as PER has been debunked here, other places on the internet have debunked "rebound shares". You don't believe in PER and have chosen to throw your allegiance behind something else that's just as silly. How you choose to ignore what actually happens doesn't make too much difference to me.
Also re: Shaq/Kobe 2001, the WS compared was in the playoffs.
Alex //
In a word, no. Both this blog and the book have explanations on why PER isn't up to the snuff as an indicator of players' contribution to wins, and you have to be more specific than just bringing up player names here and there.
Your first paragraph above contains five statements you present as fact; each is actually a theory, which you make no attempt to explain. Do us all a favor, and pretend someone you respect, who genuinely wants to understand the points you are trying to make, is simply asking "Why? What makes that statement accurate?" Make your case with something other than variations of "I know what I saw." If you can't marshal a fact-based argument, you might as well be browbeating astronomers to heed their horoscopes, or telling doctors about the wonders of phrenology.
By fact-based, I mean to reference things like the actual debunking of PER, which boils down to "if you can shoot 32% from the floor, which I dare say every NBA player since the mid-1950's has managed to do, more shots equals higher PER." Fact–if doing something you do poorly even more frequently than before causes your score to IMPROVE, then the scale isn't working.
So dazzle us all with some facts, some logical conclusions drawn from those facts, and a modicum of intellectual rigor, and make the debate entertaining. Trying to hold a conversation with an opinionated naysayer loses its luster quite rapidly.
Side note: Let's quickly go over how ludicrous it is that Clyde should be on Kobe's level as far as contributing to a win defensively. How many years of Drexler on the All NBA 1st team defensively. Hm…that's funny, it's 0! How many years of Drexler on the All NBA 2nd team defensively.
Alex does this here, and it's been done several times in this thread.
Being named to an All NBA Team, being named League MVP, and/or being named Finals MVP is NOT A STAT. It is an award which is given solely on the basis of opinion and perception.
That argument carries almost no weight, because at its core, it's nothing more than, "I think player X is good, and the media agrees with me."
To those who have made the argument in this thread, please stop using it. It doesn't get you anywhere, and TBH, it just makes you look silly.
mrparker,
You've stumbled on something wonderful or horrble, and I'm not sure which.
I'd be quite interested in reading your sources which critisize "rebound shares".
Is rebounding not one of the most consistent statistics from year to year among NBA players? I'm honestly asking.
I (mis?)remember reading a review of Wages of Wins that discussed consistency of scoring versus non-scoring aspects of the game in regards to WP/min. It found a very strong correlation; r-squared of .85, I believe, and rebounds are a big part of the non-scoring aspects of WP (and WP as a whole, for that matter).
I'd also hazard a guess that blocks and tend to fluctuate quite a bit. But I could easily be mistaken.
All this leads me to think that rebounds are a consistent stat.
That is not to say that diminishing returns do not exist; they do, though the extent is debatable. Nor am I saying that external coaching schemes (some teams elect not to have players go for offensive rebounds) or other players (for instance, someone adept at contesting shots and forcing misses) don't have an impact. And I am certainly not saying that everything in defense can be captured from the box score.
But rebounds matter, and rebounding performance tends to be consistent.
2 Trackbacks For This Post
Top Posts — WordPress.com →
March 16th, 2010 → 5:12 pm
[…] Kobe Makes Pau Gasol Unhappy According to Adrian Wojnarowski (of Yahoo! Sports), Pau Gasol isn't happy. Gasol seems to think the Kobe Bryant is […] […]
What I Admire About Professional Athletes « James Smyth →
January 7th, 2011 → 6:25 am
[…] himself in society. It isn't his courage at the end of games. It isn't even his value on the basketball court. Instead, I'll remember him for the way he […]


Using high concentration biomass slurry is a promising approach to improve the process of producing renewable energy, ethanol. Challenges of mixing such biomass slurry occur as the solid concentration increases. High concentration biomass slurry behaves like a Herschel-Bulkley fluid, exhibiting a combination of yield stress and power law behavior. It is important to obtain enough fluid property and impeller behavior data for designing high concentration biomass slurry agitators. This study focused on measuring the yield stress of high concentration biomass slurry and the impeller power number-Reynolds number relation when mixing such high concentration biomass. Using the vane method, the measured yield stress of seventeen percent biomass slurry (sawdust slurry) was found to be 300 Pascal, which is consistent with Stickel et al. (2009). The yield stresses obtained in the laboratory mixer were more consistent than those obtained in the Haake viscometer. For repeated measurement in the laboratory mixer, the coefficient of variation was less than ten percent, while in the Haake viscometer the coefficient of variation was more than twenty percent for repeated tests with the same sample and more than fifty percent for tests with different samples. The studied impellers include axial flow (HE-3), radial flow (D-6, S-4 and S-series with different number of blades) and mixed flow (P-4). The impeller behaviors in high concentration biomass slurry were much different than in turbulent operation in Newtonian fluid (water). At similar rotational speed, the radial flow impellers had lower impeller power number in biomass slurry than in Newtonian fluid, while the axial flow impeller had higher power number in biomass slurry than in Newtonian fluid. And mixed flow impeller power number in biomass slurry was close to that in Newtonian fluid. Power number is a function of Reynolds number, but the difficulty of measuring the apparent viscosity of biomass slurry makes it challenging to determine the Reynolds number in this study. The Metzner-Otto relationship, which is widely used for non-Newtonian fluids, was chosen to calculate the Reynolds number of biomass slurry. By comparing the impeller power number-Reynolds number relation in non-Newtonian biomass slurry with that in Newtonian fluid of Bates et al. (1966), the observed impeller data indicates that mixing high concentration biomass slurry happened in transitional regime. For D-6 impeller, a lower power number in non-Newtonian fluid than that in Newtonian fluid was observed at similar Reynolds number range in this study, which appears to be a common phenomenon in transitional regime as reported by Metzner et al. (1961). For the S-4 impeller, a lower power number in non-Newtonian fluid than that in Newtonian fluid was also observed at similar Reynolds number. For the axial flow impeller (HE-3) and mixed flow (P-4) impeller, power number in non-Newtonian fluid kept slowly decreasing with increasing Reynolds number, and was similar to the turbulent power number in Newtonian fluid. Metzner-Otto approach (r'=kN) is widely used to calculate the non-Newtonian fluid Reynolds number, where k = 11 was used in many studies. In this paper, k=11 underestimated the Reynolds number of biomass slurry while a k-value of 1000 overestimated the Reynolds number. A k-value of 100 appears to be the best. The concentration of biomass slurry in this paper is seventeen percent by weight. More work needs to be done to validate the k-value and to measure the yield stress when mixing different concentration biomass slurries.