text:
Is 70 wins more likely than another championship?
By C.A. Clark Aug 25, 2009, 12:42pm PDT
Share All sharing options for: Is 70 wins more likely than another championship?
I've been awful quiet around these parts as of late. I'm not really a big fan of the NBA offseason. I do my due diligence and pay attention to it all, but I don't like commenting on negotiations and trade rumors. However, the NBA landscape is looking a lot clearer these days, especially at the top. So I come back to you now to pose a question that, on the surface, may sound ridiculous.
Could it be harder for the Lakers to repeat as champions than it would be to win 70 games next year?
Before I try to convince you of the validity of that question, a caveat. This entire conversation ignores the possibility of a major injury (missing 15+ games) to a major player (any of the top 5). I know this is a huge leap of faith, and is the main reason why any team would be hard pressed to win 70 games. I know it is unlikely to happen. I'm choosing to ignore it because trying to predict if and when a major player goes down is the trade of an Oracle, not a blogger. Besides, as Boston found out last year, injuries can just as easily derail a championship run as it can a highly successful regular season. So, understand that when I talk of the possibility of 70 wins for the Lakers, I'm already assuming that health won't be a major issue, and I know just how astute that assumption is.
Right, now that the rules are set, here's my case for why 70 wins could be more likely than a 2nd straight parade:
The Lakers won 65 games last year ... and had plenty of room for improvement.
The crux of my argument. Last year, the Lakers won 65 games, and were constantly under-performing while doing so. A few bench players took a step (or three) backwards, even as the Lakers were beating everybody under the sun because the starters were so dominant. Jordan Farmar and Sasha Vujacic were the main culprits here. Farmar had a significant early injury, came back too soon, and was actually a detriment to the team for most of the year. He only began to show signs of his old self in the limited minutes he got in the playoffs. Meanwhile, Vujacic completely fell off the wagon. While his shooting wasn't nearly as bad as you think (for many players, especially outside shooters, an eFG of 49% is OK), it was a far cry from the Machine of 2007-2008, and if his actual shooting numbers aren't terrible, they don't tell the whole story. Vujacic was constantly putting up shots that made every fan cringe. Luke Walton also took a step back, although not nearly as dramatic as the other two players. The significant point here is that all three of these guys are young players. They are at a point in their career where they should be improving, not regressing. Meanwhile, Andrew Bynum started the season slow, began turning into a real powerhouse, and then promptly lost half the season to injury again. Simply a full healthy year of Bynum would be quite an improvement over last year's squad. Further, Shannon Brown will be able to pick up the slack if Farmar falters again, and even Sasha's role could possibly be filled by Adam Morrison if he can't find the stroke. Improved bench play won't win you a whole lot of playoff games, but during the regular season, a strong bench can be a huge difference maker in turning close games into blowouts.
Outside of themselves, the Lakers division is weaaaak.
Besides the Lakers, the Pacific division is the worst division in basketball, and it's not even close. The Pacific was the only division to have only one playoff team last year. It was the only division to have two teams win less than 20 games. And with a winning percentage just under 43%, including the Lakers' stellar record, the division won 6% less games than the next worst division. The only other decent team in the division (the Suns) appear to have gotten worse due to Shaq's departure, and another year on the legs of Nash and Grant Hill, and the only truly significant addition in the entire division was Blake Griffin. The Lakers could very well go undefeated in their own division.
The NBA's power consolidation works in favor of more Lakers wins.
The motto of the NBA offseason has been "The rich get richer". There has been a lot of power consolidation in the NBA this offseason, with all the teams which were contenders last year making major plays to be better this year. Shaq's in Cleveland, VC is in Orlando, Sheed is in Boston, and Richard Jefferson is in SA. You'll notice only one of those teams is in the West, which means the Lakers will only have to deal with the NBA elite twice each, save San Antonio.
Meanwhile "the poor get poorer". Small market teams are doing everything they can to shed salary, either because they want to be ready for the free agent bonanza of 2010, or because they are hemorrhaging money faster than an American automaker, and a majority of the really bad NBA teams are in the Western Conference. I'm not going to get into whether the East or the West is better, because the argument completely changes based on your sample size of teams. But the West had 6 of the 7 teams which did not win 30 games last year, and for my money, only LAC (Griffin) and OKC (Durant's continued growth) may be noticeably better than last year. Add to that list the incredibly sad story that is the Houston Rockets, and you've got quite a few games against piss-poor competition. Lots of games vs. really bad teams = lots of wins even if your team is having an off-night.
The Lakers' nemesis got a lot weaker
Only three teams managed to beat the Lakers twice in the regular season last year. The Orlando Magic (eventual NBA Finalists), the Portland Trailblazers (both losses in Portland, one of the toughest venues in the league, and always a sore spot for L.A.), and ... the mighty Charlotte Bobcats. Any Lakers fan shudders at the mere mention of the plucky team from Charlotte who almost always seem to have the Lakers' numbers. Well, that plucky team made themselves worse by trading away Emeka Okafor for Tyson Chandler. I'm not saying Okafor is a game-breaker, but he was a very decent defender who could rebound and hurt you inside. Chandler can be a great rebounder, but his defense is too highlight oriented (going for the block) and his offense can best be described as an extension of Chris Paul's will. Now that he doesn't have Paul's gorgeous oops to throw down, I think it's pretty certain that he will be exposed badly on the offensive end. So ... the Lakers are sure to pick up two wins just by finally sticking the fork in Charlotte ... right?!?
Even besides Charlotte, the Lakers lost some pretty winnable games
In my opinion, the Lakers 17 losses break down like so: 10 understandable losses (both Orlando games, @ SA, @Den, @Atl, @Mia, NO, @Utah, 2 @ Por), 3 losses that probably shoudn't have happened (@ Char, @PHX (No Nash, No Stoudamire), home to Detroit), and 4 losses that are just embarrassing (home to PHI, @Ind, @Sac, home to Charlotte). Three of those losses (@SA, @Ind, PHI) came on last second plays that fall somewhere on the spectrum between unrealistic and WTF? A few more were very close. It's not hard to see more than 5 of those games turning from L's into W's next year, providing a buffer against the predictable drop in success against the NBA elite this year (6-3 last year, maybe 6-4 or 5-5 this year)
On the other side of the equation, the NBA playoffs look to be a bloodbath.
With 5 teams looking like legitimate Goliaths, this year's playoffs will be a massive war of attrition. The Lakers seem to be clear favorites going into the season, but who knows what will happen when 5 teams of that quality (and some not too shabby potential party crashers in the Blazers and Nuggets) square off. With all those super powers, winning the championship will not be an easy task at all, no matter who ends up in the Finals, and no matter who has the home court advantage. While the Lakers may have the best chance to win the title, the probability of it is still less than 50:50. One can not understate the difficulty of winning 70 games in any season, but this year the same could be said of winning the championship. The degree of difficulty in this year's playoffs will be astronomical for all of the major players, and there will be no margin of error from the 2nd round onward.
Trying to repeat as champions only adds to the degree of difficulty
It may sound odd considering how many champions have been able to repeat in the last 20 years, but winning a 2nd championship in a row is a lot harder than winning the first. It usually happens only when one team is a clear head and shoulders above the rest of the NBA. Since the demise of the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, that team has not existed (although the Spurs deserve honorable mention for their off-year domination), hence no repeat champion. Were the Lakers a dominant team last year? If looking at their record against the NBA elite, one could certainly make that case. But their performance against the rest of the NBA clouds the issue considerably. Are they head and shoulders above the rest this year? With all the upgrades made by all the other contenders, and with the risk-reward proposition that is Ron Artest, there are too many variables to come to a firm conclusion, and it is certainly not clear cut.
So, is the likelihood of winning 70 games higher than that of winning a championship? Probably not. There's a reason only one team in NBA history has won 70 games. It takes a massive level of commitment from a team to play in a professional manner night in, night out. The Lakers certainly didn't look like that model of professionalism during the last regular season. And, as previously mentioned, the shadow of injury looms over the whole scenario, ready to bring it crashing to the ground at any time. That being said, the NBA landscape this year, with a large number of teams who are very bad (mostly in the West), and a large number of teams who are very good (mostly in the East), provides the proper circumstance in which a team could win 70 games without being clearly more dominant than every other team in the league. The Lakers are the most likely candidate, but it could also happen to any one of the three elite teams in the East. I made this argument from a Lakers perspective, but many of the points can apply to the Eastern elite as well, especially since most of the teams on the other end of those power consolidating moves were Eastern conference teams. More than in any other NBA season in my memory, there are enough great teams and enough terrible teams to make it plausible to have a 70 game winner come up short at the end of the season.
Is it possible? Am I full of crap? Did I just jinx the Lakers? What do you think?


This is really unfriendly behavior for daemons, because it is incompatible with process supervision (daemontools, runit, etc) which keep the daemon as a child process of the supervisor so it can do things like notice when the child dies and restart it, prevent two copies of the daemon from running at the same time (no more stupid pidfiles) or centralize logging policy by having the daemons send their logs to stdout.
Running monerod with the --detach option is not what I want; this causes it to double-fork and deliberately trick the parent process into thinking it has died.
How do I get monero to just act like a normal daemon?
to the command line when launching monerod. This will make it act differently than a normal unix daemon and not exit right after starting up. Works great!
How can I tell if "monerod" is working?


Parkinson Canada provides services and education to individuals and the health care professionals that treat them. Operating since 1965, the organization advocates on issues that concern the Parkinson's community in Canada. We fund innovative research for better treatments and a cure.
With federal and provincial policy makers on issues of importance to the Parkinson's community.
Recent successful initiatives include: genetic fairness, income security, caregiver support, access to therapies and brain health.


Efficient and reliable. With HELICOIL® special nuts for secured screw joints.
HELICOIL® nuts with integrated HELICOIL® Screwlock ensure secure screw joints.
An efficient linking of two fasteners. The nuts comprise a nut body and an integrated HELICOIL® Screwlock thread insert.
Locking is achieved by one or more polygonal threads of the HELICOIL® Screwlock. They exert a clamping effect on the flanks of the inserted screw, creating an elastically resilient frictional locking. The resulting clamping torques are comparable with those specified in ISO 2320 or can be adjusted individually.
HELICOIL® locknuts are used in engine exhaust systems in the automotive industry, in mechanical engineering, in construction machinery, rail vehicles and agricultural machinery.
Prevents self-loosening. The threads of the HELICOIL® Screwlock clamp the flanks of the screw or bolt to be inserted – for an elastically resilient frictional locking and optimal screw locking.
High-strength nuts in combination with HELICOIL® Screwlock thread inserts – optionally with washer. No loosening on loss of preload force due to the use of seals. For greater security.
The locknut retains its strength even at high working temperatures, e.g. in exhaust systems. Seizing is also prevented.
The locknut consists of a nut body and the HELICOIL® Screwlock thread insert. Screw locking is achieved by a polygonal thread of the HELICOIL® Screwlock. These threads clamp the flanks of the screw or bolt to be inserted. The result is an elastically resilient frictional locking and hence screw locking to prevent self-loosening. Depending on the application, multiple polygonal threads can be used to achieve increased clamping torques.


text:
Houston Criminal Attorney Jim Sullivan Defends Juvenile Clients from Around the World
Houston Texas Criminal Defense Attorney Jim Sullivan has defended clients in jury trials since 1994. He has represented over 3,000 clients. He defends and fights for those accused of breaking the law. He represents people from around the world, from many diverse countries, ethnic groups, religions and customs. He has represented people from literally every continent and over 75 countries.
Houston Criminal Lawyer Jim Sullivan studied Journalism, Latin American and Asian studies at Baylor University. He also speaks Spanish. In 1988, traveled to the war zone areas of northern Nicaragua on a Christian mission trip. In 1990, he lived in Mexico and has traveled throughout on the country. In fact, he has hundreds of in-laws living throughout Mexico--from the states of Guerrero to Chiapas. He has also visited Italy, Canada, Mexico, Belize, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica.
Jim Sullivan has represented many Spanish-speaking clients in criminal and juvenile court. He literally has represented clients from around the world and from all faiths. His understanding of different cultures has enabled him to get many cases dismissed based on a multitude of reasons--from cultural misunderstandings to psychological problems that were exacerbated by the need to "save face" in Asian cultures.
If you want serious representation, call Jim Sullivan at 281-546-6428 for a free consultation.
Serving Houston, Galveston, Angleton, Pearland, Alvin, Sugar Land, Bellville, Clear Lake, Conroe, Pasadena, La Porte, Missouri City, Texas City, Friendswood, Richmond, Rosenberg, Corpus Christi, Brownsville, San Antonio, Laredo, El Paso, El Campo, Austin County, San Marcos, Dallas, Denton, Plano, Lubbock, Midland, Anahuac, Beaumont, Hempstead, Huntsville, Liberty, The Woodlands, Humble, Tomball, League City, Bellaire, Deer Park, and Katy and other communities in Austin County, Brazoria County, Chambers County, Colorado County, Fort Bend County, Galveston County, Harris County, Jefferson County, Liberty County, Montgomery County, Waller County, Walker County and Wharton County.
Labels: Harris County Criminal Attorney, Houston Criminal Attorney, Houston Criminal Lawyer, Houston Juvenile Attorney, Houston Juvenile Lawyer, Jim Sullivan

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Full Diamond Detective version for Windows.
Detective / Diamond Detective Read reviews, rate games, download free trials/versions.
Puzzle. Diamond Detective challenges you to uncover crimes by collecting clues, comparing evidences and arresting thieves. Thieves are always wide awake, they break open and rob the gem vaults. Your task is to connect adjacent gems in order to create the longest possible chains and earn points for that. As you create chains of gems the vault meter is filled with gems; the longer chains are the quicker the vault meter is filled up. You must fill the vault meter with gems before the thief reaches the escape route to complete a level. On completing a level you earn a clue that helps you to uncover a criminal. After every five levels you are to identify the thief from a lineup of six suspects using the clues. There are two kinds of levels: Regular and Pursuit; regular levels were described above. When you have identified the thief you need to complete a Pursuit level in order to put the criminal into jail. The goal of Pursuit levels is to turn all the tiles into gold by creating chains of gems on them.
Diamond Detective is a captivating game that features stunning graphics, diverse sound effects and thrilling instrumental music. The game contains several original twists that are worth mentioning. First of all it is rank system that allows players to make a career from a trainee to a commissioner. There is also the trophy room, where all your significant achievements are displayed. All in all, Diamond Detective is an addictive game that includes such original twists as various types of levels, rank system, the trophy room, special tiles, and special gems. The game brings tons of fun and develops logical thinking, since every 5 levels you are to compare evidences and identify the thief.
Alternative names: Daimond Detective, DiamondDetective, Diamond Detektive, Diamond Detectiv, Dimond Detective.


Michel Baudin's comments: It's 2017, and this question should be unnecessary, but the responses reveal that confusion about this concept is still widespread. As I belong to The Takt Times Group, I felt compelled to participate; at the same time, I didn't want to repeat everything else I have written on the topic.
Should You Know Why Before You Know How?
The first article in Jill Jusko's twice yearly "Top 10" Industry Week articles about Lean is her own Lessons in Lean Training, in which she quotes consultant Jon Armstrong as saying "individuals first need to know why before they know how. It's important to start with the principles." It sounds rational but it isn't quite as obvious as it sounds. It's an effective way to teach geometry but not English spelling. In geometry, you arrive at conclusions through logic; in spelling, you memorize arbitrary rules. You don't learn to spell because of principles but because you won't get the job you want with a misspelled resume.
Because of the way the meaning of Lean has changed over the past 25 years, I think it's too late to ask this question. On the other hand, it is relevant about TPS or about the art of designing and improving manufacturing operations, whatever shorter name you want to give it.