Nick thinks we're living in The Matrix!

This is my response to Nick’s post, see here. I suggest you have one person click over, print the post, then make copies for all your friends so as not to boost his numbers. We had an argument for what makes an occurrence in sports impressive, that was sparked after I stated that the Lakers making the NBA Finals last year was impressive. This post is very long and very messy but very right. If you make it to the end you will be rewarded with a bonus contribution from a high-profile contributor. If you would like, bear with me through it. This is a total smackdown. Nick, prepare to get humiliated.

In this post, Nick=THB=The Honest Bro (Debatable)
[Updated 2-24: I added categories 10 and 11. I actually only skimmed his post at first, after going through it a second time, I fortunately was able discover two more points of contention that should have been previously mentioned.]

Now, I will not use any childish and underhanded tactics to prove my point here. That is a sign of weakness and used by someone to try to spin the argument in their favor in which they are clearly at a disadvantage (THB uses this right off the bat). If you're right and a winner, you don't need to employ such tactics. That's why the best are the most graceful (i.e. Federer, Woods, etc). I would also like to mention that at a party this weekend, Nick accidentally leaned on the stove and turned on the gas, putting all of our lives in danger. When it was discovered what he did, he said “I was just trying to ignite the party.” No one laughed. One girl walked into the room then walked out. This guy right here is THB:

THB posing with his championship trophy.

So here is my rebuttal to THB's argument, that falls apart in the first third of his middle school essay when he lies numerous times to raise himself up even higher (I don’t remember speaking in all caps and cutting him off, even once. He completely fabricated this part of the story to make himself seem composed so he would look better) and prove there is a matrix. You see, Nick is a robot, a thoughtless and emotionless robot who is the second coming of the terrible Skip Bayless.

Here is the actual definition of impressive by the way (THB makes up his own):
Impressive: making or tending to make a marked impression : having the power to excite attention, awe, or admiration .

Abstract: His entire argument rests on the odds/numbers, which as I will show, are completely irrelevant. THB is what is known as a “sports snob”, he doesn't appreciate good play because he doesn’t find a display of tremendous skill “impressive.” In fact, he doesn't understand that being favored before a game isn't the same thing as actually going out and winning. After the game is completed, who is to say what team was really favored? Sports is not some computer program where you type in odds, run a simulation, and see who comes out ahead. If this were true, THB might have a point about what is impressive. However, we do not live in the matrix.

Being a good team, with the weight of the pressure of everyone gunning for you against stiff competition, whether favored or not, and winning is an achievement and impressive at that. Sure it’s more impressive when an underdog beats the heavy favorite, but does that mean if the favorite had won it would be completely devoid of any impressiveness? Is it impossible to be impressed with a winning team that was favored? If you really want to be technical, before the game starts, each team has a 50% chance of winning. That is what makes sports and the spirit of competition so great. It means nothing under THB’s “computer system.” It shames me to include him as a fellow sports fan. He should take a long look at his life and see if he really understands and enjoys the game as much as he thinks he does, because if some team featuring one of the greatest players of all time leads his team to the finals and he just expects this to happen and doesn't find any of it impressive, then he’s got problems. This really cuts to the heart of his apparently dark soul.

That was sort of rambly, but allow me to delve further.

*The Lakers actually were impressive by his logic: 49.7% to make the finals, meaning they were technically not likely to do it. And this was calculated using his arbitrarily inflated numbers he assigned to each series. What a docheschnozzel. Although this ends the argument in my favor since I just proved that it is impressive by his standards, I will go on--- please follow me.

Now I will break it down Dr. Jack Ramsay style into a 9 categories so I can organize my thoughts better.

1. Guess how you find out who the better team is? You play the game and see who wins! Hooray!

His entire argument rests on numbers; this demonstrates a fundamental flaw in his argument-- that he doesn't understand basketball at all. The Dallas Mavericks we're probably 90% favorites (again, I am pulling this out of my ass because no one knows at all. This is a number I would assume THB to come up with) to beat the Golden State Warriors in the 2007 playoffs in the 1 vs. 8 matchup. The Mav's had the better regular season so they were rightfully awarded the #1 seed and therefore were favored to win the series-- they lost. Why? Because the Warriors were the better team for 7 games. It wasn't chance; teams don't lost "by chance." THB's view would point toward the logic of numbers and explain away the loss as "bad luck" or losing in the "game of chance." However, this is simply not true--- the Mav's lost because the Warriors played better. Therefore, the numbers before the game were wrong-- which they always are (Vegas gets the odds/spread right about 1/1000 times), which is exactly my point. Nothing matters except the end outcome. And in a game where the best players in the world are playing at such a high level and you have to bring it your all every night, nothing is even close to certain. Once again, I fall back on the computer program analogy-- if we were living in the matrix, then yes, it wouldn't be impressive for the Mavs to have won that series.

So to recap, if the Mav's win, it is not impressive at all. However, the Warriors beat the Mav's making them the better team in the playoffs, which is the only time where being the better team matters. After the fact, would he still say it wouldn’t have been impressive if they won? Oh, but the Warriors had a great energetic home crowd, and a frantic style of play that perfectly matched up against the Mav's lackluster defense, and their coach Don Nelson knew the Mav’s style of play inside and out, and Matt Barnes and Baron Davis played out of their minds, and…oh, so you mean these other variables can come into play in a basketball game? Get out of town! Really? So a basketball game isn’t a simulated computer program based on pre-calculated odds? But wouldn’t that make his entire argument moot? THB thinks that the better team just cruises on autopilot and takes their chances (maybe he thought they would try to draw a blue pen out of a hat filled with 9 blue pens and 1 red pen because they had an arbitrarily assigned 90% chance of winning?) Wait, maybe there is more to basketball than that. And this is where THB does a disservice to the game of basketball by reducing it to numbers that are 99.9% wrong and calculated before the fact. Acting as if being the better team going into the game is the same thing as actually going out and winning is untrue and dishonorable. Basketball is an incredibly emotional game as explained later...

The better team is decided by whoever wins the game, not running a bunch of numbers through a computer simulation (or actually, a bunch of fat lazy sports bookies from Las Vegas who have no life and watch wayyyyyy to much TV). An economist would laugh in his face at the way he manipulates the numbers, as if he had never heard of an external variable. Hell, they would laugh at just the way he tries to explain away such a complex and intricate game to a game of numbers and odds and chance and f&*k you THB (this is PG-13 rated).

NOW FOR A QUICK BREAK: A little monkey wearing people clothes and riding a little motorbike.



BACK TO ACTION!

2. Get your basketball game odds/lines here--- Every prediction wrong or your money back!

The fact that he made up all his numbers is completely irrelevant. His arguments fall upon the fact that the favored team has nothing to gain at all and everything to lose. In other words, what are we doing here. This is what most amateur sports announcers and tabloid NY-Post-esque sports writers use all the time to debase a sports team and cause a stir. The players and coaches always disregard this as bullshit because that basically places no value on what they have accomplished to get to that point, and places no value on what they accomplish if they win. Therefore, he only gets excited by watching an unfavored team win-- his definition of being impressed. That is profoundly obnoxious. This sounds exactly like Skip Bayless, the most abhorrent individual in the sports media. If there is nothing impressive about good teams winning, then why does ESPN spend so much time highlighting these teams? Is there some vast conspiracy where none of their viewers find these teams impressive yet ESPN still loves talking about these teams? I think it has something to do with teams, like the 2008 L.A. Lakers, having the power to excite attention, awe, or admiration.

And these odds that he bases his argument off of? Holds up about as much as his interior defense holds up against my baby-hook; that is, not at all. Here is a great TMQ article (TMQ=Tuesday Morning Quarterback=Gregg Easterbrook) that breaks down the “favorites” and “predicted odds” of the 2008 NFL season in his annual "Bad Predictions Review." TMQ consistently criticizes all the prognosticators for putting specific numbered chances on teams winning because they are always wrong and unless you can predict the future, they mean nothing. Sure one team can have a better chance of winning, but according to THB, that makes their potential for being impressive non-existent. Read on to see how ridiculous this logic can take you.

3. THB's understanding of basketball is the equivalent of my understanding of NASCAR

...which is, I really don’t understand it at all. I just wait for a car crash to happen. I don’t care who wins or who is a good driver. I assume the true NASCAR fans actually enjoy watching a good driver display his superior driving skill and win the race. I don’t, because I don’t care nor understand why people enjoy it. I admit this. THB is only impressed by car crashes (upsets) in basketball. The only "impressive" thing about the NBA, according to THB, is when a team that is mathematically favored loses. He sees numbers and makes a decision on what is impressive. I don’t understand how this doesn’t make THB a super hot and sexy robot.

I mean robot.

4. Nick tried to use the “refs decide the outcome of the game” argument when talking about chance

3 things:
a. Everyone knows this argument is silly; as if the better team lost because of some calls. In the heat of the game, the losers make these excuses, but we all know that’s not true. I think I learned this was not true once I hit age 12; it’s just like learning there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny. In the matrix, refs consistently decide outcomes of games.

b. If this we’re true, it would further prove my point of the unpredictable nature of a basketball game. It would make the odds of one team winning less accurate.

c. I didn’t walk out of the room and go brush my teeth when he said this; I respected his idiotic behavior and responded in kind. I wasn’t hiding from anything.

5. THB: I'm gonna make stuff up because this is the matrix and who cares

THB dismisses the Lakers for beating the Nuggets and Jazz in last year's playoffs. The Nuggets possessed one of the most clutch players in recent history in Carmelo Anthony (he is #2 in "clutch stats" behind LeBron and ahead of Kobe), not to mention Allen Iverson. Oh yeah and this:

Denver ended up as the 8th seed in the Western Conference of the 2008 NBA Playoffs, and their 50 wins marked the highest win total for an 8th seed in NBA history. It also meant that for the first time in NBA history, all eight playoff seeds in a conference had at least 50 wins. The Nuggets faced the top-seeded Los Angeles Lakers (57–25 overall record) in the first round of the 2008 NBA Playoffs. The seven games separating the Nuggets overall record and the Lakers overall record is the closest margin between an eighth seed and a top seed since the NBA went to a 16-team playoff format in 1983-84.

THB also states " The Nuggets limped into the playoffs with a team that clearly didn't work." Actually It was the first time since the 87-88 season that the Nuggets finished with at least 50 wins in a season. And they "limped?" They finished the 2nd-half 25-16, vaulting multiple teams to make the playoffs. The Jazz? Deron Williams and Carlos Boozer, and one of the most well-coached teams in the game. I'm not even getting into the San Antonio Spurs who had won 3 of the last 5 NBA Championships. Yes, the Lakers were better than these teams; no these series were not equivalent to the USA basketball team playing Ghana. That wouldn’t be very impressive. THB compared these series to a US-Ghana basketball game. THB is a dumb robot.

6. Celtics-Hawks, 2008 First Round (The Playoffs Theory)

The Hawks might have been the statistically worst team to ever make the playoffs (they were 37-45, making them 30 games worse than the Celtics), making this 1-8 matchup one of the most lopsided in the history of the NBA. We all know what happened, this series went 7 games. 7 games! Improbable, yes, very. But looking closer, why did this happen?
a. The skill level in the NBA playoffs increases due to the level of the teams that need to qualify to make it.

b. It is exponentially more competitive because it is the playoffs. I mean WAY more competitive. The regular season is long and grueling with many meaningless games. NBA payers are selfish, over paid, and coddled and slack off during the regular season (except for Kobe and the 2008 Lakers). In the playoffs, they can finally try their hardest because it actually matters. Therefore the differences between the two teams even out.

c. The atmosphere, with sold-out arenas and larger fans, plays a larger role. The Hawks won every game that was played in Atlanta against the Celtics. (Also, see Warriors-Mav's in 2007)

The better teams, the pressure, the fans, the competition, it all adds up to increase the difficulty of winning in the playoffs ten-fold. Furthermore, the Hawks received great play from Mike Bibby and Joe Johnson, which underscores another point—there is so much talent in the NBA, especially on a team in the playoffs. All a team needs is one outstanding player to come up big and you can win the game. Bibby and Johnson were those guys—it puts the game on a more equal footing to have one of those guys.

The underlying competitiveness of a post-season highlights the difficulty of winning in the post-season. Why do you think there so many upsets in March Madness? The difference in skill between two teams is even much greater in college basketball than in the pros. This is why we play the games. Odds don’t matter.

Now this is where I will clarify my Bobcats statement that he alluded to—if they would play them in a series, that means that it would be in the playoffs, so the Bobcats could be the Hawks. It wouldn’t be a Celtics-Bobcats 7-game series during the regular season in a season like this (where the Bobcats suck), but an ultra-competitive playoff series encompassing all of the factors described above. The impressiveness factor would be multiplied exponentially. And the Bobcats actually beat the Celtics this year.

7. Parallels between 2008 Lakers and '96 Bulls

Not being impressed by this Lakers team is just like saying he wasn't impressed with Michael Jordan's '96 Bulls. They featured one of the games greatest players, the brilliant Phil Jackson as coach, and ran a beautiful triangle offense that centered around their best player and incorporated a bevy of veterans. Their brilliance was amazing, dare I say impressive. Does that team sound familiar to the 2008 Lakers? The Lakers didn’t win the championship like the Bulls did and that is disappointing. That is because if you are good enough to make the finals, then you are good enough to win. But everything else about them? Impressive. That is what makes them great. But the Bulls in 1995-96 were never impressive because they were favored in every game, THB says. They were most likely to win all their games and win the championship. If this is really true, then this exposes a deeper problem inside THB that I mentioned earlier, that he doesn’t appreciate or truly enjoy good basketball (or know what the hell he is talking about).

8. Tiger Woods's history in WGC Match Play Championship

I am too lazy to extrapolate further, but look up his history. Tiger is great, and favored in every 1 vs. 1 match he plays. THB also thinks Tiger Woods is not "impressive" because the odds are overwhelmingly in his favor every time.

9. Cavaliers-Celtics Upcoming Matchup

When the Cavaliers play the Celtics in Boston, I would assume the Celtics would be a slight favorite. If the Celtics win, THB wouldn’t be impressed. I find this hard to believe. This demonstrates how there are so many other intangibles in deciding what makes a performance impressive. THB, however, and for the twentieth time, relies soley on numbers.

Watching the Lakers dismantle the Nuggets, Jazz, then the almost-dynasty-like Spurs in workman-like fashion is an impressive feat. It would have been more impressive if they had beat the Celtics in the finals, but that doesn’t take anything away from their previous play to get there. Does THB really not admire how Kobe scored 17 points in the fourth quarter to lead the Lakers to a come-from-behind victory in game 5 against the Spurs? What the hell is worthy of THB’s admiration then?

He states :"The Los Angeles Lakers making the 2008 NBA finals is not impressive. In no way, shape, or form."

Oh yeah, if it’s the Wizards beating the Pacers in March because they were statistical underdogs. It’s all about odds/chance, right? Who cares about everything else because nothing else matters, right? Can you believe I kept a straight face while he made this argument?

10. THB: "That's a big part of the reason that the probability of the Lakers reaching the NBA finals in 2008 was 49.7% (I prove this in appendix). Yeah, that's as impressive as getting tails when you flip a coin."

I couldn't let this one slide. "Yeah, that's as impressive as getting tails when you flip a coin." Are you f%$king kidding me? Where do I start with this one. He equates a 49.7% chance of winning (again, I don't need to remind anyone that this number is bullshit, made-up, and impossible to ever know, and therefore irrelevant) to a coin flip. I have to give THB credit here, he is exactly right...

wait a tic, we're not talking about poker? I thought he was talking about an 8-8 vs. a A-K pre-flop. Then it would be about a coin flip. This argument essentially summarizes his entire argument-- basketball and poker are no different. Except for the fact that the odds in poker are real and calculated while the odds in basketball aren't, and basketball and poker are 100% different. I finally get what is pissing me off about his robotic crunching of numbers-- he thinks basketball is poker. You mean you're not impressed by a coin flip? Neither am I! If we are to believe his coinflip notion, then we are led to think that every great rivalry in the history of sports, where both teams have an almost equal chance of winning, would never be any kind of impressive.

Next time we play one-on-one, let's just flip a coin to decide since that is such an indicator of who wins (or actually, we'll draw pens out of a hat of 9 red and 1 blue. I'll draw red because I would be a 90% favorite---- again, the baby-hook, it's unstoppable).

11. "Reasonable Assumptions"

This bascially proves that calulating numbers can't work because he doesn't know the numbers. Every single one of his calculations is therefore discredited. I agree, the Lakers we're more likely to win each of the 3 series. As my messy rant of a blog post has already explained, if you're unable to find anything impressive about their run in "any way, shape, or form," that speaks to something larger about your view on sports.

Concluding thoughts:

If it is never impressive for any sports favorite to win, then that means the best and greatest are never impressive. By THB’s logic, I would never want to be the best, because therefore I would never be able to impress!

What’s the point in watching great teams play? Is nothing they do impressive because they’re supposed to be great? Is Kobe pulling one of his signature “pump-fake then up-and-under” lay-ups not impressive because he pulls it off more than 50% of the time? Where does this end?



Yes, George Mason making the final four was way more impressive than Florida making the final four. But by simply stating that Florida should have made it and is therefore unimpressed is downright silly (All four #1 seeds have made the final four once since 1939, and it was last year). His inability to give a good team its respect for accomplishing something great is another extremely obnoxious move.

My conclusion is that THB is lying. He really is impressed when good teams win because he really enjoys watching the NBA and watching great players (like Lebron, Paul, Wade) do their thing and win games that they’re likely to win. He enjoys it because he is impressed at their skill, which allows the better team to win. I’ve never heard him say after a Celtic’s win, “Big deal, they were supposed to win, I’m not impressed.”

We watch sports to be impressed, otherwise we wouldn’t be watching. I know this because everyone else is. And THB really isn’t a robot.

BONUS!

Fellow blogger Mike G. chimes in. He was a 4-year division 1 basketball player; so were both his brothers; so was his dad; so was his uncle. Basketball runs in his blood. He feels strongly about this:

your rommate's argument is absurd, basketball is the sport where
upsets happen more than any sport followed by tennis. granted, the
longer the series, the better the chance is that the favorite would
win. the lakers did lose to the pistons in 5 i think in the nba
finals though. its not something that can be thought about logically
because it is not math or science, it is more like art (no homo). its
why people play better when they are sick, its why the underdog wins
all the time, its why people cry when its over, its why i dont win
when i bet on it. how about the #1 mavericks losing to #8 golden
state two years ago. he also makes unreasonable assumptions, proven
by the fact that he has to justify his assumptions by labeling them as
being "reasonable" in the first place. no nba team has a chance of
winning another team 75%, and certainly not beating the jazz 65% of
the time. derron williams and kobe bryant dont match up with each
other either. chris paul has never beaten derron williams in a head
to head game since they have been drafted. the jazz average beating
the hornets by over 20.

Q.E.D.