Dave in Green

I tend toward the bird in the hand being worth more than two in the bush. So my biggest dream would be to see huge improvements from both the veteran Zips players and the incoming freshmen. I'd like to see them all add a star or 10 points to their ratings by all the "experts," and for the Zips to come out of nowhere and be the Butler of the 2010-11 season.

True believers of all political persuasions are pre-programmed to vote for the candidates of the parties that best represent their gut beliefs. Only rarely do they cross over to vote for an exceptionally appealing candidate of a different political persuasion, or against an especially unappealing candidate of their own party. The base percentage of true believer voters can be fairly reliably predicted in various geographical areas based on historical election results. The core of conservative support, including both the republican and libertarian persuasions, has largely gravitated to the old confederacy. While Kentucky was formally a neutral border state during the Civil War, there were areas of Kentucky that sided with the confederacy. So there is some commonality with the core confederate states in modern politics. Offsetting that is the split among conservative-minded people between the principles that the republicans and libertarians represent. While they have some things in common, in other areas, these two parties are diametrically opposed. So tough choices have to be made, which means that some will jump parties, and some will just stay home and not bother to vote between what they see as two flawed choices. As always, uncommitted independents will have an influence on the outcome. But it depends on how many Kentuckians haven't dedicated their lives to one party or another, and how many of those who are committed to a party are motivated to vote for their own party's candidate or against the other. A candidate from one party who is considered too radical by a large number of voters could have problems against a candidate from the opposing party who is moderate enough not to engender outright hate from voters of the opposite party. I'd say that regardless of what the polls show today, this is a fluid situation that could go either way come election day depending on many variables including those mentioned above.

Besides, Republicans constantly bring up the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Boston Tea Party, and other issues more than 200 years old. So saying that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't matter defies logic. My goodness, where to start? Do you understand there is a difference between the Constitution/Bill of Rights/Amendments and the Boston Tea Party? Just to be clear, the Boston Tea Party was a episode of revolt by the colonists. The Constitution and Bill of Rights establish the legal framework for the country. The laws we establish today are required to be in compliance with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They are as important today as they were 200+ years ago. The problem is, citizens either don't know or don't understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Dave's post is a perfect example of probably the majority in this country who really don't understand the framework of our government. The Republicans and Democrats use lawyers and the courts to manipulate the Consitution and Bill of Rights. Their use of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment is a perfect example of how they manipulate the Constitution. Republicans used the 14th Amendment in the 2000 election to solidify their case. The Democrats use is to make up protections for freak fringe groups instead of making certain all groups are treated equally. The Libertarian Party is the only party that discusses equal protection as everyone being equal. If the media wants to try to run people with different ideas out of political races (they will fail in Kentucky), then we are going to be stuck with more of the same. What we have now isn't working and a change is needed. Obama isn't change, he is an acceleration of the ongoing disaster. Republicans and Democrats are more than willing to participate in the disaster as well. We are all screwed unless Libertarian thinking can catch hold. Where to start? Based on your odd misinterpretation of my comments, I suggest a good starting point would be to slow down your reading speed and focus more on comprehension.

No offense taken. Keep having fun. The only serious subject on ZN.O is the final score of Zips games.

A few of them already tried that strategy earlier this week, and got ripped for belittling the concept of civil rights. Besides, Republicans constantly bring up the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Boston Tea Party, and other issues more than 200 years old. So saying that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't matter defies logic. Outside of Fox, few journalists are going to let them get away with that inconsistency.

Hey, I'm impressed with Green, too. Seriously, it's a nice, quiet little village convenient to Akron, Canton, the airport, etc. When I was living in Michigan, I was Dave the Michigan Zips Fan. When I moved back to the area, I needed a name change.

Only the 3rd guest in 62 years to cancel out on Meet the Press. Hey, if he's already got the Kentucky election wrapped up, there's no reason to risk doing more damage with any more interviews like the last few days. I suspect after a little media training that he'll return to the interview circuit, speak only with friendly interviewers tossing softballs, and say all the right things to ensure election with the electorate that's eligible to vote for him. I think that hardcore libertarian true believers may be disappointed with what comes out of Paul's mouth the rest of this election cycle. If he continued speaking what his heart of heart truly believes, it would only make it more difficult for him to win a general election, even in Kentucky. I have no problem with Rand Paul representing Kentucky in the U.S. Senate if that's what the voters of Kentucky want. Having a libertarian or two in the Senate would bring a different perspective to that body. It would give the public an idea of what libertarians could bring to the national stage. Diversity is good.

Who isn't for liberty? That's a lot like people who claim that they are patriotic and imply that anyone who is not a member of their party cannot possibly be patriotic. I can honestly say that I have never met a single person in my life who has stated in my presence that they are not in favor of liberty or they do not love their country. They may differ on how best to achieve the most liberty for the most people, or they may lament some of the actions of their country as misguided. But there's nothing wrong with that. Diversity of political opinion is what this country is all about.

For example, Dr. Paul, exactly how does the right to carry arms into restaurants relate to the right to discriminate against people in restaurants? Louisville Courier-Journal Story And exactly what is the difference between a private company making an honest mistake resulting in the deaths of oil rig or coal mine workers (because we all really do know that mistakes can happen to anyone) versus fatal industrial accidents resulting from a private company knowingly violating government regulations designed to protect workers as well as the environment? Louisville Courier-Journal Story Keep splainin, Dr. Paul, so that we can all try to better understand how we would be affected if people with your philosophy were running government.

It's certainly true that most ordinary citizens are not any more concerned about the theory behind the 46-year-old Civil Rights Act than they are about the theory behind the 223-year-old U.S. Constitution or subsequent Bill of Rights and other amendments to the Constitution. Most people aren't so concerned with philosophies or laws as they are about the practicality of how those philosophies and laws affect their lives and the lives of their families. Most Americans are generally familiar enough with the republican and democratic philosophies to have a rough idea of how their lives will be affected when those parties are in power. They have no idea how it would affect their lives to have libertarians in power. So people naturally have more questions about libertarianism, and it's up to the media to ask the tough questions and pry out answers, especially when a candidate is not completely forthcoming. All political philosophies can be made to sound good in theory, especially by persuasive or charismatic speakers, and libertarianism is no different. At its core, libertarianism promotes maximum individual freedom with minimum government interference. Who wouldn't like it when it's put like that? The problem is how to get there, and how would it actually affect the lives of ordinary citizens and their families? Libertarianism is not monolithic. It has various wings that run the gamut up to and including anarchism, which is the current "system" in Somalia. The government of Somalia is certainly minimal, everyone gets to carry guns, and Somalians do pretty much whatever they want as long as they can avoid getting shot by other Somalians doing what they want. I doubt that many Americans would like to see that extreme in this country, and it's certainly an extreme that Rand Paul does not seem to advocate. But exactly where does he stand on all the issues that affect ordinary citizens? Mr. Paul appears on the surface to be a fairly moderate libertarian. He says today that if he had been alive during the civil rights movement that he would have marched with Dr. King. He says he's absolutely in favor of eliminating discrimination in the public sector. But in the private sector, the libertarian philosophy of individual freedom over government regulation trumps enforcement of any anti-discrimination policies. How would that end up affecting whites, blacks, browns, yellows, men, women, Catholics, Jews, etc., in the real world, not the theoretical? Personally, I find some value in all the different political philosophies, including libertarianism. I also see flaws in each when it comes to execution by their respective political parties, and am always wary of any party getting excessive power. I like to see all viewpoints represented, and have the best of each maximized and the worst of each minimized. An informed electorate and an effective system based on checks and balances is important to prevent excesses. Rising to the national stage of becoming a front runner for the U.S. Senate has officially opened Pandora's box for Rand Paul. Each time he speaks out on a new subject, his remarks are not just going to be heard by the true believers, but by the general public that was previously barely aware of his existence. He's now getting close to a position that can directly affect their lives and the lives of their familes. He has some splainin to do, and each explanation will result in new questions. Welcome to the real world, Dr. Paul.

Both Ron and Rand Paul have appeared many times on MSNBC, including Rachel Maddow's show. Rand Paul first announced that he was exploring his senatorial bid on Maddow's show. Both father and son seem to have gotten along well with Maddow in the past, and never seemed to have a problem with any of her questions about the economy, etc. This was simply a followup question to an interview that Rand Paul had with the Louisville Courier Journal newspaper, in which the same question was asked. If he'd given a straight answer, Maddow would have moved on to other questions. But like so many other politicians, Paul became evasive when asked the difficult question. He dodged giving a straight answer because he knows that mainstream America has long ago left behind the concept of private businesses having the right to discriminate based on such things as race, religion, sex, etc. Only a small minority of mostly white folks want to go back to those good old days -- good for them, not so much for those who would end up returning to their previous status as the objects of overt discrimination by a small minority of mostly white business owners who might want to formalize their bigotry. It's hard to win a general election with views that differ so greatly from those of the majority of mainstream voters. This issue is not going to go away, nor should it.

Checks and balances, an integral and critical component of separation of powers, is the forgotten key to America's success. Upset the checks of some interests over others and it upsets the balance that allows many to prosper. Upset that balance, and some interests gain excessive leverage over others. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, no matter who holds power. Too little government creates as many problems as too much government (see Somalia for the results of excessively minimizing government). It requires little thought to sign up and be a dittohead for the left of the right. It's much harder to be in the middle, because it requires constant evaluation and value judgments between choices offered by the left and the right, neither of which is always right or always wrong. The middle ground is an important component of checks and balances, because moderate independents seek balance while the extreme left and the extreme right seek to eliminate checks and balances to impose their systems on those who want neither. Those who seek to polarize the public and eliminate the middle ground do so only because they believe their side is destined to win. They are the true believers who have nothing but contempt for anyone who deviates from the party line. They're the ones who spew political invective on every forum on the internet, from political forums to sports forums to cooking forums. Independents in the middle generally do not post political commentary. They sit back and read and make judgments about which is the lesser of two evils at any given time. These moderate independents then go into election booths, close the curtains, and vote left or right, depending on which direction is best for maintaining good checks and balances at any given time. Moderate independents are the people who decide elections. They represent the ultimate check and balance that prevents extremists from taking over. As long as enough of them do their electoral homework, and as long as there are free elections, America will remain in good hands.

DIG attends more basketball games than I do, I would rather read his opinion about the team, that's what ZN is about. I can look up any stat I want on the internet, anybody can. It seems to me that DIG thinks he needs to "verify" everything with a number, like when your writing a history paper. I don't need/want that. That's all. I enjoy reading these kind of posts from DIG. Statistics can be as much of an art as a science. "There are three kind of lies, lies, damn lies and statistics" Dr Z, I think this is a classic case of internet forum black and white escalation, where people with differing but reasonable positions use extremes to make points. Our disagreement on the useful balance of stats in formulating opinions has escalated to the point that you've adopted an anti-stats signature, and I've adopted an anti-black and white signature because I refuse to be moved from my shade of gray. In reality, I have many posts on ZN.O with no statistical references, and I can find examples of your postings where you do not totally diss stats. So it's really not a black and white debate. It's my shade of gray vs. your shade of gray. And guess what, we're really not that far apart. We both agree that stats by themselves don't tell the whole story. We both agree that stats can be manipulated and misinterpreted. We both agree that when appropriately used, stats can be a useful measuring tool in conjunction with other tools to help create a more informed opinion. You may think that I rely a little too much on stats, and I may think that you don't give them the full weight they deserve. But we're talking nuances here, not polar opposites. In any case, diversity is good. ZN.O will be a better place if we have a full range of opinions backed by various mixes of observation, intuition, and statistical analysis. So I don't plan to change, and I hope you don't, either. We may take occasional shots at each other's differences, but it's all in good humor and not to be taken too seriously.

After watching him play several times, my best guess is that Egner has the potential to be more of a flex player who could cover almost any opposing player, regardless of position. On defense, he's closer to Linhart than any other recent Zips player I can think of. He's quick enough to cover all but the quickest backcourt players, and he has enough leaps to cover all but the biggest, tallest frontcourt players. This flexibility carries over to offense. He specializes in playing the wing, but in the games I saw he easily moved into the post when Henniger was on the bench. His outside shot may require a little polishing, but even in the highest level HS games he had no problem scoring inside. He slams with as much authority as the most athletic players I've seen slam over the Zips. In a 2-point victory over Toledo St. John's in the state quarterfinals, I had a chance at the JAR to see Egner at his very best in all aspects of the game. He outscored Henniger, and rebounded, blocked, and stole the ball almost at will. A real bonus is his ability to handle the ball. When the quicker Toledo St. John's guards started picking the pockets of Jackson's guards, Egner called for the ball and brought it upcourt by himself a couple of times. When they couldn't stop him, they gave up on the press. It was a LeBron-style take-over-the-game performance, and with anything less, Jackson goes home and doesn't move on to win the state title. If he can further hone all of these skills and carry them to the next level, I don't see Egner playing a single position. I think he will play wherever the Zips need the most help depending on the style and matchups of whatever team they're playing. This ability to play multiple roles gives Egner the potential to earn lots of PT.

+1 Bonus points for no stats mentioned, right?

Nice analysis from someone who has followed Gilliam and obviously has a sharp eye for details. The issue of good players occasionally disappearing is not uncommon. There aren't many players who can be relied on to take over in every situation. Everyone has their ups and downs, as the Cavs can attest. It hurts more when it's clearly the team's best player who has passive games and there's no one available to take up all the slack. On a more balanced team like UA it's almost expected that different players will step up in different games. "Huge talent with a nice upside" is the really good thing to hear. Some of the high school players who come in with reputations like that never pan out. But to hear that about a player with 2 years of college under his belt suggests that he will be an immediate contributor to the Zips from his first game. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this forum, and hope you hang around and join the discussions when Gilliam starts playing for the Zips.

I don't recall any mention of Diggs already being on campus. But it's good to know that he is wasting no time settling into his new home. Hope he appreciates the tradeoff of a little cooler weather for no hurricanes.

Actually, the one crazy story that I would not dispute is that certain members of ZN.O may have been abducted and altered by aliens. I simply have no more rational explanation for some of the things I read on these forums.

Happened to have a nice steakburger, fries, and a tall cold one at the Game Day Grille in Jackson tonight. Coincidentally, there was a TV interview with KD. Interestingly, Josh Egner was not a part of the TV interview after they figured out it would be an NCAA violation for him to appear together on a TV show with a college coach before he graduated high school. So they had an informal interview with Egner and his Jackson HS point guard teammate, Brad DuPont, for the Jackson fans in attendance after the official show was over and KD had left the stage. There were no stunning announcements from KD. They asked him about each of the incoming players, and he naturally had good things to say about each. He said he liked Dakotah Euton's fundamentals, thought that Abreu has the tools to be as good or better a pure point guard than Dru Joyce, thought that Egner might be the most athletic Zips player since Romeo Travis, and thought that Diggs was a unique opportunity to get an experienced player (transfer) at the 2-3 position where the Zips have a need without having to sit out a year. Egner is an impressive young man. He handled his informal interview with confidence and maturity. He said he knew that he was going to have to work hard on his strength to make the jump from HS ball to college, and that he was prepared to do whatever KD asked him to do. He gave advice to a group of 7th grade players in attendance that when he was younger, his coach told him he was never going to be good enough to play varsity ball. He told the 7th graders that if they really wanted it, and if they really worked hard at it, they could do it. Again, no big news, but at least a small taste of Zips basketball talk between seasons.

"Feelings."

There is absolutely nothing at all out of line with my statistical reference to Villanova if the complete statement is thoughtfully considered in full context. As a matter of fact, I happen to have a lot of trust in my opinions. One reason I do is because I often verify my opinions by comparing them to other reference points. I don't trust any single reference point as absolute, whether it be only my own eyes, only someone else's eyes, or only empirical data. Every single reference point taken by itself can be deceptive. That doesn't mean that one shouldn't have any trust in any single reference point. Just don't trust anything absolutely without verifying. When I verify my intuition and opinions against various other points of view, including but not exclusively limited to statistics, I often find much supporting evidence for my initial impressions. That tends to increase my confidence in my opinions. But it doesn't make me cocky, because I've seen people smarter than me consider large bodies of data and still make errors in judgment. It takes more time and effort to research data than to just wing it with unsubstantiated opinion. But if one does not actively seek data to verify one's own opinions, one may eventually come to believe that they are always in the right because they have deliberately shut off access to any data that might have proved them wrong. For all I know, it may be really comfortable living in a world like that. But it's not where I choose to live.

We are in agreement on this: No one can really know that which hasn't happened. We all just make our best estimation based on our analysis of the data available. Here's an interesting example. Villanova, which finished the regular season ranked #9 in the country, had more players averaging double digit minutes than either the Zips or any other highly ranked team -- 11. Only 3 Villanova players averaged double digit scoring -- 18.2, 13.3, and 11.5. The next 6 averaged from 9.5 to 4.4. So from this example we can see that under certain circumstances -- the right players and the right coaching -- a really deep rotation with lots of different people scoring can be successful. There are other examples of successful teams with much shorter rotations and much less balanced scoring. Point is, different systems can be successful given the right circumstances. The question of what would work best for the Zips next season is a mystery. We don't yet know just how good all the incoming players will be or how they will interact with the veterans, and we don't yet know how much change the coach is willing to make to take the next step. KD's system has worked to measurably improve the Zips' average performance and record over the last 6 years from that of at least the previous 6 years before his arrival. He seems to be trying to take the next step by changing some, but not all, of his previous practices. Whether that will involve changing the depth of the player rotation or the balance of scoring, I don't think any of us really knows what to expect next season. I don't think KD will know, either, until he has a chance to see all of next season's players in action together. That's what makes next season one of the most interesting to me in the 30 years I've been following the Zips.

It's true that other teams with similar PT distribution get much different scoring distribution from what the Zips had. The only point I was trying to make is that focusing on trying to have fewer players in the rotation would not necessarily be the best way to improve as long as there are more players on the team who are capable of contributing. It's up to each coach to make the most of what he has to work with, and if the Zips have 10 or 11 players capable of contributing, find a way to make all those contributions pay off with more wins.

Just to put the Zips rotation into some perspective, 9 players averaged double digit minutes per game this season. The average number of players with double digit minutes of playing time for the top 10 teams in the final regular season AP poll was about 8.5. So the Zips rotation is not really significantly different from what the top teams average, and there's no reason to expect much change in the coming season.

Absolutely love the part about ESPN downgrading yet another player because he went to a "little" program instead of a "big" program. This only reconfirms that those amateur sports talent evaluators have no self-confidence in their own evaluations, and with good reason. As always, your comments are interesting, informative, and welcome here. With all due respect to the VCU program, I'd just like to see the "student" (Shaka) not getting so far ahead of the "teacher" (KD) in the volume of quality recruits to their respective programs.