where to begin?   how about tuesday night, at 7:30pm PDST.   i don't know where you were, but i was sitting in a booth in the bar section of my local chili's, trying to watch the warriors game. why? because this god forsaken hellhole, located within the outer rings of the local melting pot of bland, middle-american culture we call "the mall", is the only place in my town with CSN Bay+, the premium channel that is home to the preempted rejects of the sporting world.   so what exactly was it that caused me to be affixed to the sticky vynil of a gaudily decorated booth, surrounded on all sides by strange mall people, with their oversized alice and chains t-shirts and cheap, cliche hot topic decorations?   ice hockey.    F*cking ice hockey, the game with such low scoring they have to force teams to play without  a full team on the rink,  in 2008!   somehow the nhl still exists after countless near-defunk-ings!

     from what i have managed to decipher from television, in the midst of the dense cloud of indifference surrounding the bizzarre sport, the local bay area team, the "sharks", are presently enjoying some sort of lead in their conference, or whatever equivalent they have.   it would seem their contingent of hook-nosed, eastern bloc goons is more profficient at awckwardly slapping tiny black objects about an ice rink for several hours at a time.   incredibly, their ability to ice skate, a pursuit usually left for little girls and effeminate boys, has caused their "games" to preempt nba basketball!!!

     needless to say, this is a huge problem.   i don't know how many more awesome blossoms i can choke down people!!!   tell your friends:   stop hockey now!

Here's what ESPN's john Hollinger had to say about Anthony Randolph in June:

Between Me and the Scouts, One of Us Will Look Like an Idiot

Anthony Randolph, LSU, 9.85

 

Yes, this is true. Seen in many quarters as a high lottery pick, Randolph has virtually nothing in his statistical record to justify such a lofty selection.

 

In particular, his woeful ball-handling numbers are a major red flag. Randolph had more turnovers than any prospect except Beasley and Thompson, but those two players had every play run through them; I'm still waiting to find out Randolph's excuse.

 

Additionally, his 49.9 true shooting percentage is alarmingly bad for a guy who is supposed to dominate athletically.

 

He can block shots, and the fact his team was such a mess probably didn't help his numbers any, but gambling on Randolph with a high first-round pick looks like the basketball equivalent of hitting on 19 in blackjack. Hey, maybe the dealer throws out a 2 and everyone thinks you're a genius, but chances are you're going to bust.

 

It appears he's going to be drafted in the middle of the first round at worst, but even that appears to be a terrible mistake -- there is no track record whatsoever of a player rated this poorly achieving pro success.

OK, take a deep breath.   This sentence fragment doesn't imply Monta is the best player drafted in 2005.   What it implies is that as the 40th overall pick, Monta represents the best move, luck notwithstanding, of any nba organization that draft day.   What am i basing this statement on?   Let's take a look at his player efficiency, the de facto means of rating a player's overall impact on the game.

As of today (prior to tonights matchup against a Bosh-less Toronto), Monslay's EFF is a butterscotch, maraschino cherry diamond +19.74.   Guess who's got him beat from that draft class?   Exactly THREE players!   Whom, you ask? #10 pick Andrew Bynum (leading by a paltry 2.12), #4 Chris Paul (currently ranked 4th in EFF at 27.5), and #3 Deron Williams (at 22.31).   Not bad for a skinny "6'3" kid straight out of high school.

Of course, player efficiency isn't necessarily the golden ratio of player assessment, but I'll leave further analysis to the more mathematically inclined.

(authors note: Monslay? that's the best nickname i've heard yet. we need to seriously put some time into this!)