Well I'd say the fact that we're in May and the general feeling from the nba is "everything" is on the table is not a good sign. Seems like theyre grasping at straws.
100% agree. While POTUS gets most of the macro blame for lack of testing (and that screwball deserves plenty of it) the lack of micro testing of healthy/younger individuals in sports/entertainment/finance is perplexing.
The FDA recently approved some better ones from Roche Labs, and there are some other ones coming on line in May that are expected to be much better.
Yeah, I should make it clear that my comment was COMPLETELY predicated on the existence of reliable antibody testing.
Who are the current NBA 4s whom Jaylen Brown can't cover? The dude is big and long, and getting more jacked by the year. He already credibly defends LeBron, who is about as much of a load down low as it gets. On offense, the mismatch he gives against slow/big 4s on the wing is one of the Celtics biggest advantages longterm, and they'd be fools to give that up for John Collins.
That’s the one that the UW virology lab is using. It seems to have an 100% sensitivity and a 99.8 % specificity and will take a while to ramp up. You have no idea how many crappy Ab tests there are out there aiming to separate people from their money.
I didn't get the impression Hollinger had watched Grant Williams closely, at least once Williams got past his 3-drought. Any analyst who doesn't take into account the picks Williams set and the hustle plays he makes is never going to be high on him.
I'm not sure I said anywhere that Jaylen Brown is an issue?
Yeah, I guess it comes down to where you see Collins long-term. I think that a) he’s a 5 b) he’ll get a near-max c) it’s really really hard to build a roster that pays a 5 huge money unless he’s a top-15 player and d) John Collins doesn’t have that upside.
(a) I see JC as a 4 (power wing) that can play a small-ball 5 when you want the offense to be unstoppable.
Yeah, the bolded is what I was getting at when I compared the situation to that of the Sixers: as soon as you go all-in on a guy to fit with your core, he better be that guy, or you can really be trapped, even with elite talent.Basically Danny could sit tight and watch JT/JB continue to develop. They'll be title contenders even under that scenario.... so it's not the worst idea in the world to do nothing and hope Romeo or a draft pick becomes the 3rd sidekick
Either way, its good to be back tussling/speculating over the Celtics bright future
Also, in addition to what he said above, we have had many people here (my nursing home) who have had the virus, who then tested negative for the antibody, so ….
From the article below, it could be that they were tested too early. It appears that when folks with confirmed cases that tested negative for antibodies initially tested positive on a retest:
The KD blog boy comment elicited a chuckle from my Dubs fan son.
To be fair, their rookies shouldn’t be great because the picks weren’t great. But I don’t think that’s the end-all given the presence of two young studs (one of which is a genuine superstar).
I'm fine with what he said about Grant and Carsen.
I agree Hollinger didn't see Romeo enough to make his assessment; I'm not Hollinger's biggest fan but some of the comments in the thread about him are embarassing. I agree Langford is a guy some will not value as much as we would, but I also imagine there's a few GMs who paid attention as well.
Comments about how Hollinger didn’t contribute anything besides PER? Idk, the fact that he can still cite that idiotic stat with a straight face makes him a moron or a shill; I don’t really see a 3rd option.
The guy was a significant part of an effective front office for many years. I'm comfortable with the conclusion that he knows a lot more about basketball than virtually anyone on the board, and that includes analytics. That certainly doesn't make him right all the time---like I said, I am not his biggest fan (and obviously his continuing affection for PER is limiting). But suggesting he's either a moron or a shill says far more about you than about Hollinger---and I actually think you are a better poster than what that comments suggests about you.
What's wrong with PER? His book makes a pretty good case that he's measuring what he set out to measure.
A better question imho is “what’s right with PER”? It’s a locked box sausage stat that claims to measure “efficiency” while rewarding players for inefficient volume shooting. It completely ignores defense, and may or may not have anything to do with a player’s impact on wins and losses. And no one but Hollinger knows exactly how it’s calculated or what it’s supposed to mean.
The quotes I used are not “scare quotes” — they’re just normal, attributive quotes. The metric is called “Player Efficiency Rating.” Hollinger’s words.
MLB was on a different timeline as they have a CBA to deal with (payments, service time, etc). Given the initial reaction from the MLBPA, those issues may take some time to work out. And pitchers need time to build up again and get on a set schedule.
NBA players will likely lose out on a chunk of money as well. I think the leagues made a good faith showing (for PR reasons) to keep the money flowing, but when/if things get officially cancelled, I think that will change very quickly. NBA will likely claw back some money based on games not played.
And now Yahoo is reporting that Lebron, Steph, Giannis, and Kawhi are among the NBA superstars pushing for a restart.
