Analytics, "It's like arguing with a baby, or someone who believes the Earth is flat," Daryl Morey

King Baller

King Baller

All-Star
There is a large amount of discussion on Hoopshype today about Analytics. Here is a taste:

"Forward-thinking coaches have always explored new ways to analyze and attack the game, to test their hypotheses against any available data. There is simply more data than ever available now, and a more intensive effort to harness it. That's what statistical analysis is really about. But the public debate has become wildly distorted, because some loud skeptics—Barkley, Brown and countless cranky old newspaper columnists—have promoted a thoroughly warped image of the advanced stats movement, with criticism built on a foundation of straw men, misperceptions and mythology. "It's like arguing with a baby, or someone who believes the Earth is flat," Daryl Morey, the Houston Rockets general manager and advanced-stats devotee, said in describing what it is like debating the anti-analytics crowd. "It's like debating politics on Facebook." Bleacher Report

tag.png
Houston Rockets, Daryl Morey, Analytics
- See more at: http://hoopshype.com/rumors.htm#sthash.CgShPuoF.dpuf"

Link to Hoopshype--> http://hoopshype.com/rumors.htm
 
I'm not sure who said this one, but it refers to the "Analytics community":

"If you ask the analytics people who work in the NBA, 'Who does work for the Lakers?' Nobody knows," said Ben Alamar, director of production analytics at ESPN and a former analytics official for multiple NBA teams, including the Oklahoma City Thunder and Cleveland Cavaliers. "It could be that they're being really secretive and that they're really good at being secretive. But they haven't hired anybody that anybody has respect for in the analytics community." ESPN.com

tag.png
Los Angeles Lakers, Analytics
- See more at: http://hoopshype.com/rumors.htm#sthash.CgShPuoF.jVVHOG3P.dpuf
 
At its best, advanced statistical analysis (analytics for an imprecise shorthand) helps you pare down inefficiencies in how you run a team. Tell Josh Smith not to take a shot from further than ten feet from the rim. Ensure that defenders have a hand in a shooter's face on jumpshots. Stuff like that.

If it was ever possible to moneyball your way to wins in the NBA, it isn't anymore. Any competitive advantage your advanced stats are bringing you are being matched by 29 other teams' advanced stats departments. At best, you are keeping up with the joneses by conducting statistical analyses.

The main problem I see is that stats are an analogy. They simplify and approximate what is happening on the court by eliding other information, some of it very important. The assist stat, for instance, is pretty weak as an analysis of team play, but it is still part of the holy trinity of meaningful statistics while the pindown screen that freed the shooter is not tracked at all. Garbage in, garbage out. PER is the go-to stat for a lot of discussion of player contribution, but it is unduly weighted toward high usage players. Defensive rating calculations often give a high weight to defensive rebounding stats so you will see guys like Kevin Love and Reggie Evans ranked highly on Defensive rating while Robin Lopez (for instance) has a much worse rating despite a very good inside defensive presence and willingness to box out the other team's best rebounder freeing Aldridge (a mediocre natural rebounder for his size) to grab 10 rebounds a game.

I think advanced statistical analysis is with us forever now, which is a good thing. I want smarter basketball in general. I just don't think you can moneyball your way into title contention. I think you still need to have two stars and a deep team to make a run, you just add analytics on top of that to make your stars and roleplayers more efficient.
 
When we say "Analytics," are we referring to the 'advanced stats' like Drtg, PER, etc. and the stats gathered by the SportVU cameras, or just the advanced stats? The data from the new movement tracking cameras can be super helpful with player adjustments/development ... the advanced stats are just a descriptive tool.

Hadlowe, I agree with your post - well written
 
As someone who doesn't necessarily fully understand the complete depth of analytics, I would say that the only issue is analytics cannot properly account for development (and arguably nothing can). So it can tell you where your guys should be taking shots from, give you a hint as to which veteran player (who's play has been steady and hence statistically reliable with sufficient sample size) you want to go after, maybe help you in evaluating how much to pay a guy. But it's not going to help you actually teach the players you have to play and win games, to set hard screens, to execute according to the plan, which in my humble opinion is often more important than the team you've assembled on paper. Ideally you get a little bit of help from analytics in getting a player with certain strengths already so that you don't have to teach him everything from scratch, but we've seen that the same player's performance can differ greatly depending on the team he's on, even if he's being asked to do the same things.

So the question then becomes, if ultimately it's coaching and getting talented players to play to their potential that wins games, is all the analytics actually doing anything useful? Bringing up the Lakers is quite a dumb point IMO. You don't need analytics to tell you that it's not a great idea to throw heaps of money at an old Kobe Bryant. You don't need analytics to see that the Lakers lack talent, period. Analytics SHOULD tell you not to try running a D'Antoni offense with Kobe and Dwight Howard, but then again our FO wants our team to play faster, so clearly analytics doesn't always tell you what the best style of play for your players should be. Do good coaches need analytics, or are they already able to identify the adjustments that need to be made to be a more efficient and effective team just from watching the guys day in and day out?
 
Er...I'm not sure where this belongs but I do know its not in the Kings forums. General NBA methinks.
 
my problem with analytics as a "movement" is that, for all the breadth of data available, those within the "movement" have adopted extremely reductive strategies. analytics has largely boiled a creative enterprise down to a few basic principles: shoot layups, shoot threes, shoot free throws, avoid midrange jumpshots, and defend with your life the corners. enormous amounts of data shouldn't point every single team to the same exact conclusion. analytics should leave plenty of room for interpretation, but that's not what we're seeing right now, and it's homogenizing the game in rather predictable and boring ways...

my hope is that, eventually, analytics levels the playing field to the point that we basically end up back where we began: with everybody holding the same cards and the game opening up as a result of creativity. eventually, i would think that nba defenses will evolve and adapt to the point that whatever advantage these new analytics-based strategies provide will evaporate. as it stands, though, i'm not terribly interested in watching all 30 teams run up and down the court shooting a high volume of threes, which is what a great many minds within the analytics movement believe should result from the data...
 
It is worth knowing that Cousins leads the NBA in turnovers, so the coach can do something to change it.
Statistics give you a starting place. I used them a lot as a scientist. They can add credibility to a point of view.
 
Hadlowe said:
At its best, advanced statistical analysis (analytics for an imprecise shorthand) helps you pare down inefficiencies in how you run a team. Tell Josh Smith not to take a shot from further than ten feet from the rim. Ensure that defenders have a hand in a shooter's face on jumpshots. Stuff like that.

If it was ever possible to moneyball your way to wins in the NBA, it isn't anymore. Any competitive advantage your advanced stats are bringing you are being matched by 29 other teams' advanced stats departments. At best, you are keeping up with the joneses by conducting statistical analyses.

The main problem I see is that stats are an analogy. They simplify and approximate what is happening on the court by eliding other information, some of it very important. The assist stat, for instance, is pretty weak as an analysis of team play, but it is still part of the holy trinity of meaningful statistics while the pindown screen that freed the shooter is not tracked at all. Garbage in, garbage out. PER is the go-to stat for a lot of discussion of player contribution, but it is unduly weighted toward high usage players. Defensive rating calculations often give a high weight to defensive rebounding stats so you will see guys like Kevin Love and Reggie Evans ranked highly on Defensive rating while Robin Lopez (for instance) has a much worse rating despite a very good inside defensive presence and willingness to box out the other team's best rebounder freeing Aldridge (a mediocre natural rebounder for his size) to grab 10 rebounds a game.

I think advanced statistical analysis is with us forever now, which is a good thing. I want smarter basketball in general. I just don't think you can moneyball your way into title contention. I think you still need to have two stars and a deep team to make a run, you just add analytics on top of that to make your stars and roleplayers more efficient.
Click to expand...

The thing everyone forgets about Billy Beane and "moneyball" is that, once the rest of the league caught on, Billy changed his strategy and has veered back more classic "feel" GM-ing. The "analytics is dumb" "villain" of the Moneyball movie is now his second-in-command
 
Tetsujin said:
The thing everyone forgets about Billy Beane and "moneyball" is that, once the rest of the league caught on, Billy changed his strategy and has veered back more classic "feel" GM-ing. The "analytics is dumb" "villain" of the Moneyball movie is now his second-in-command
Click to expand...

Daryl Morey himself, desperate to defend his legacy, a) hasn't done jack crap; but b) whatever he HAS done is directly the result of him GMing in apure 100% NBA 1.0 fashion and saying "me get superstar, me win!". People talk like he has moneyballed out this unlikely team of scrappy losers and they are challenging the world. When what he has really done was 1) trade for 1 superstar and 2) sign another as a FA, thus giving him the exact same 2 superstar look adopted by just about every great team since the dawn of the NBA. And still they are not major contenders, but at least now they are back to the point they were when they had Yao and TMac.
 
Bricklayer said:
Daryl Morey himself, desperate to defend his legacy, a) hasn't done jack poopoo; but b) whatever he HAS done is directly the result of him GMing in apure 100% NBA 1.0 fashion and saying "me get superstar, me win!". People talk like he has moneyballed out this unlikely team of scrappy losers and they are challenging the world. When what he has really done was 1) trade for 1 superstar and 2) sign another as a FA, thus giving him the exact same 2 superstar look adopted by just about every great team since the dawn of the NBA. And still they are not major contenders, but at least now they are back to the point they were when they had Yao and TMac.
Click to expand...

This is rather dishonest. Who was calling Harden a superstar before he left OKC? Morey basically anointed him a franchise player the day he acquired him, signed him to a max extension. Before, he was just a sixth man with potential. How much potential? Most didn't think he would be THIS good. Though the analytics did point towards it.

I swear, some talk about analytics as if they're the Easter Bunny or the Toothfairy, as if their existence is something to be proven. "I don't believe in Analytics"... absolutely hysterical. Analytics are numbers. They exist. They tell you things. They obscure other things. Its more data to use in making reasoned judgments. It might be acceptable at the peewee level to ignore more data and perspective. Hardly becoming of the most competitive basketball league on the planet.
 
Padrino said:
my problem with analytics as a "movement" is that, for all the breadth of data available, those within the "movement" have adopted extremely reductive strategies. analytics has largely boiled a creative enterprise down to a few basic principles: shoot layups, shoot threes, shoot free throws, avoid midrange jumpshots, and defend with your life the corners. enormous amounts of data shouldn't point every single team to the same exact conclusion. analytics should leave plenty of room for interpretation, but that's not what we're seeing right now, and it's homogenizing the game in rather predictable and boring ways...

my hope is that, eventually, analytics levels the playing field to the point that we basically end up back where we began: with everybody holding the same cards and the game opening up as a result of creativity. eventually, i would think that nba defenses will evolve and adapt to the point that whatever advantage these new analytics-based strategies provide will evaporate. as it stands, though, i'm not terribly interested in watching all 30 teams run up and down the court shooting a high volume of threes, which is what a great many minds within the analytics movement believe should result from the data...
Click to expand...

two of the most analytically sophisticated teams, Dallas and Portland, have their respective main guys shooting tons of midrange jumpers, mainly because their statistics departments tell them that it's a good idea for them to do so. when Dirk or LMA take midrange jumpers, it makes it difficult for opposing teams to double them, it opens up tons of offensive rebounding opportunities and a midrange jumper, shot at a certain percentage, can be an efficient shot. point being: good analytics departments look at the talent their rosters have and try to find a way to tailor the team's style of play to their strengths. the Grizzlies under Pera have been on the forefront of statistical analysis, but when you look at their style of play, it is light years away from what we, as laymen, understand as advanced stats style of play. as far as the Kings are concerned, the biggest problem is that our front office seems to believe that the key is to get the talent you have to play a way that appears to be efficient, instead of finding the most efficient use for the talent we have. well, it's either that, or they just plain suck at analytics.
 
Last edited:
HighFlyingMonkey said:
This is rather dishonest. Who was calling Harden a superstar before he left OKC? Morey basically anointed him a franchise player the day he acquired him, signed him to a max extension. Before, he was just a sixth man with potential. How much potential? Most didn't think he would be THIS good. Though the analytics did point towards it.
Click to expand...

Very true. LOTS of people on this board, myself included, wondered if they were overpaying for Harden and if he could put up his per 36 numbers when actually playing 36+ minutes.
 
Harden may have become a superstar with analytics, or he may have become a superstar just because he was a good player who willed himself to be great.
With a track record like Harden's, it wasn't uncommon to be signed by another team, given a big contract, given a huge portion of the offense on that team, and became a superstar.
I really don't see what analytics has to do with Harden's trajectory. It's happened for decades in the NBA, and it will happen again regardless of analytics.

What should be looked closer is how the hell Adelman got so many wins out of those crap no-name teams in Houston when they didn't have Yao (or when he was injured). What he (and many others before, namely Jerry Sloan in Utah when he didn't have Stockton/Malone) accomplished with non-dominant players combining to equal more than the sum of their parts is what the promise of analytics suggests, but I haven't seen.
 
IfAt1st said:
Harden may have become a superstar with analytics, or he may have become a superstar just because he was a good player who willed himself to be great.
With a track record like Harden's, it wasn't uncommon to be signed by another team, given a big contract, given a huge portion of the offense on that team, and became a superstar.
I really don't see what analytics has to do with Harden's trajectory. It's happened for decades in the NBA, and it will happen again regardless of analytics.

What should be looked closer is how the hell Adelman got so many wins out of those crap no-name teams in Houston when they didn't have Yao (or when he was injured). What he (and many others before, namely Jerry Sloan in Utah when he didn't have Stockton/Malone) accomplished with non-dominant players combining to equal more than the sum of their parts is what the promise of analytics suggests, but I haven't seen.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying analytics caused Harden to become a superstar. That's ludicrous. The point is that analytics aided the Rockets in identifying Harden as a superstar in the making, and by valuing him accordingly they were able acquire him (of course, many who didn't necessarily think Harden was a budding superstar still thought OKC made a bad deal at the time).
 
Tetsujin said:
The thing everyone forgets about Billy Beane and "moneyball" is that, once the rest of the league caught on, Billy changed his strategy and has veered back more classic "feel" GM-ing. The "analytics is dumb" "villain" of the Moneyball movie is now his second-in-command
Click to expand...

I think it's fair to say that analytics in combination with huge sums of money is what's currently ruling baseball. The big spenders dole out for OBP, SLG%, and FIP instead of AVG, HRs, and ERA but other than that, not much has changed. Remove the salary cap and the NBA would probably be the same way.
 
King Baller said:
I'm not sure who said this one, but it refers to the "Analytics community":

"If you ask the analytics people who work in the NBA, 'Who does work for the Lakers?' Nobody knows," said Ben Alamar, director of production analytics at ESPN and a former analytics official for multiple NBA teams, including the Oklahoma City Thunder and Cleveland Cavaliers. "It could be that they're being really secretive and that they're really good at being secretive. But they haven't hired anybody that anybody has respect for in the analytics community." ESPN.com

tag.png
Los Angeles Lakers, Analytics
- See more at: http://hoopshype.com/rumors.htm#sthash.CgShPuoF.jVVHOG3P.dpuf
Click to expand...

Wow, what a solid point. Let's ignore everything the Lakers have done over the last few decades as they haven't hired any respectable analytic guys.

Amirite?
 
HighFlyingMonkey said:
This is rather dishonest. Who was calling Harden a superstar before he left OKC? Morey basically anointed him a franchise player the day he acquired him, signed him to a max extension. Before, he was just a sixth man with potential. How much potential? Most didn't think he would be THIS good. Though the analytics did point towards it.

I swear, some talk about analytics as if they're the Easter Bunny or the Toothfairy, as if their existence is something to be proven. "I don't believe in Analytics"... absolutely hysterical. Analytics are numbers. They exist. They tell you things. They obscure other things. Its more data to use in making reasoned judgments. It might be acceptable at the peewee level to ignore more data and perspective. Hardly becoming of the most competitive basketball league on the planet.
Click to expand...

EVERYONE was calling him a "potential superstar". Or at least sufficient everyone's that everybody agreed he was a max contract and there was a major bidding war to get him in trade.

This wasn't some sneaky analytics maneuver. It was a blatant outbid them for the best young player on the market move. It wouldn't have mattered if it was Harden or Griffin or Westbrook or whoever. Houston needed a star. Morey got that star. And that's fine. That is NBA basketball 101. But what IS dishonest is going back and trying to reinvent it to support the analytics GM meme.
 
LPKingsFan said:
I don't think anyone is saying analytics caused Harden to become a superstar. That's ludicrous. The point is that analytics aided the Rockets in identifying Harden as a superstar in the making, and by valuing him accordingly they were able acquire him (of course, many who didn't necessarily think Harden was a budding superstar still thought OKC made a bad deal at the time).
Click to expand...

Saying analytics aided the Rockets with Harden can at very best establish that Daryl Morey is so bad at basketball he needed stats to see what all those competing front offices were seeing through more traditional methods.

Or alternately he can choose to admit that you know what, I went for the star, analytics be damned, or at least just supported me.

But people do NOT get to go claim Harden was some analytics pickup. The ENTIRE reason he was available in the first place is because teams were jostling over who was going to give him the max the next summer. There was nothing secret or saavy about picking him up. It was a pure power aquisition.
 
I'd be interested to know what metrics, if any, Oklahoma City, San Antonio, and Indiana are using to identify talent. Those teams seem to be the most consistent about identifying and developing players that other teams overlook. I suspect it's not heavily stat based. OKC has been stockpiling extra first round picks (12 first round picks in the last 7 years) and that allows them to make deals to acquire veteran depth. I guess you could call that the brute force method, draft enough guys and you're likely to land a couple stars. It's then important that you maximize the value in these assets by developing them and trading them at the right time. Emphasis for them is on the "sell high" part of the equation. San Antonio doesn't seem all that concerned about where their players come from as long as they have a role in Pop's system. And a winning pedigree in combination with team friendly deals for their stars allows them to attract the type of talent they want. Emphasis for them is on the "buy low" part of the equation. Indiana seems to favor low-risk/low-ceiling young players instead of using their picks on risky players and they have a lot of turnover with their supporting cast of veterans. They sign journeyman level players to short deals so they remain flexible year to year to reshape their roster. They're somewhere in the middle -- they don't really buy low or sell high, they just opt out of the roller-coaster of tanking to draft high or attempting to lure max free agents.

A lot of stats oriented people seem to believe there's a secret formula in the data which is waiting for the right expert to mine it and put it to use. I've played around a bit with trying to find trends but my feeling is that it's a myth. All three of these teams have put together winning traditions while following very different strategies. If there's a commonality here it's their general disregard for what anyone else thinks is the best way to build a team. That and player development. Identifying players with potential doesn't do you much good unless you have the resources to realize that potential. That's where I would suggest front offices make bigger investments. Not in scouting players but in getting the best team possible in place to develop them.
 
Bricklayer said:
EVERYONE was calling him a "potential superstar". Or at least sufficient everyone's that everybody agreed he was a max contract and there was a major bidding war to get him in trade.

This wasn't some sneaky analytics maneuver. It was a blatant outbid them for the best young player on the market move. It wouldn't have mattered if it was Harden or Griffin or Westbrook or whoever. Houston needed a star. Morey got that star. And that's fine. That is NBA basketball 101. But what IS dishonest is going back and trying to reinvent it to support the analytics GM meme.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to make anyone look bad (lord knows quite a few of my old posts would do that easily for me) but it was easy to find the thread about Harden being traded to Houston and what some on this board thought at the time.

Bricklayer said:
Oh no. I wanted no part of Harden. I think he's overrated, going to be overpaid, and am expecting a Joe Johnson career arc here.
Click to expand...

Rookie said:
"The Houston Rockets agreed with guard James Harden on a five-year, $80 million contract Wednesday, league sources told ESPN The Magazine's Chris Broussard."
..
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8...s-agree-five-year-80-million-contract-sources

Rockets got screwed IMO.
Click to expand...

Big Cuz 15 said:
harden got paid! 5yr/80mill

ridiculous pay for a rashard lewis/joe johnson 2nd tier type player

WOW
Click to expand...

The prevailing sentiment at the time was that OKC got a great haul and that Houston drastically overpaid. So far Morey has shown himself to be a very good GM. He's also a GM that is a strong believer in analytics which has informed his methodology in assembling a team. I find it somewhat odd that people are willing to admit he's done a good job and at the same time tried to completely discount the way he's gone about doing it.
 
funkykingston said:
Very true. LOTS of people on this board, myself included, wondered if they were overpaying for Harden and if he could put up his per 36 numbers when actually playing 36+ minutes.
Click to expand...
funkykingston said:
I'm not trying to make anyone look bad (lord knows quite a few of my old posts would do that easily for me) but it was easy to find the thread about Harden being traded to Houston and what some on this board thought at the time.







The prevailing sentiment at the time was that OKC got a great haul and that Houston drastically overpaid. So far Morey has shown himself to be a very good GM. He's also a GM that is a strong believer in analytics which has informed his methodology in assembling a team. I find it somewhat odd that people are willing to admit he's done a good job and at the same time tried to completely discount the way he's gone about doing it.
Click to expand...

Oh no, a great many of US were off, including me, although I would actually question just how many degrees above Joe Johnson Harden is, flopping aside. He has just about enough talent to get you to the 2nd round.

Anyway, that does not change the FACT, messageboard denizens or no, that half the GMs in the league wanted Harden. That's a FACT. It was a big ole bidding war, and would have worse been during the summer. Morey didn't discover anything. In fact the very best thing Morey had done? Pile up assets ala Danny Ainge precisely to go out and nab himself a star. That wasn't analytics. And that's mean as a compliment. That was classic GMing. If Morey needed analytics to do something Ainge or Riley do by habit, then Morey is a basketball moron. But I don't think he was. I think he polished his geek shield, then tucked away in a little drawer and went out and NBA GMed himself a couple of superstars, or close as he could find.
 
Bricklayer said:
Oh no, a great many of US were off, including me, although I would actually question just how many degrees above Joe Johnson Harden is, flopping aside. He has just about enough talent to get you to the 2nd round.

Anyway, that does not change the FACT, messageboard denizens or no, that half the GMs in the league wanted Harden. That's a FACT. It was a big ole bidding war, and would have worse been during the summer. Morey didn't discover anything. In fact the very best thing Morey had done? Pile up assets ala Danny Ainge precisely to go out and nab himself a star. That wasn't analytics. And that's mean as a compliment. That was classic GMing. If Morey needed analytics to do something Ainge or Riley do by habit, then Morey is a basketball moron. But I don't think he was. I think he polished his geek shield, then tucked away in a little drawer and went out and NBA GMed himself a couple of superstars, or close as he could find.
Click to expand...

Right. Such an obvious FACT that Harden was going to be a max-level player. He was had for Kevin Martin and Jeremy Lamb. Some bidding war for a guy "EVERYONE" expected to become a superstar.

Lets cut out the revisionist history bullcrap. Almost nobody expected him to be a superstar. And lets stop pretending that there is some mutually exclusive dichotomy between "traditional" GMing and using analytics. Analytics does NOT tell you to avoid grabbing superstars. The principles remain the same. The analytics help make better informed decisions. This strawman you insist on hammering should have died a long time ago, but better late than never. Just stop.
 
HighFlyingMonkey said:
Right. Such an obvious FACT that Harden was going to be a max-level player. He was had for Kevin Martin and Jeremy Lamb. Some bidding war for a guy "EVERYONE" expected to become a superstar.

Lets cut out the revisionist history bullcrap. Almost nobody expected him to be a superstar. And lets stop pretending that there is some mutually exclusive dichotomy between "traditional" GMing and using analytics. Analytics does NOT tell you to avoid grabbing superstars. The principles remain the same. The analytics help make better informed decisions. This strawman you insist on hammering should have died a long time ago, but better late than never. Just stop.
Click to expand...
My memory gets hazy over time but wasn't one of the factors being Oklahoma couldn't/wouldn't pay Durant, Westbrook AND Harden top dollar? Rather than lose him for nothing, they got what they could. I could easily be wrong.
 
whozit said:
My memory gets hazy over time but wasn't one of the factors being Oklahoma couldn't/wouldn't pay Durant, Westbrook AND Harden top dollar? Rather than lose him for nothing, they got what they could. I could easily be wrong.
Click to expand...

OKC was looking at having to either pay Harden or Ibaka big money. Given that they already had two wing scorers in Durant and Westbrook and were pretty shallow in terms of bigs they opted to trade Harden and re-sign Ibaka.
 
whozit said:
My memory gets hazy over time but wasn't one of the factors being Oklahoma couldn't/wouldn't pay Durant, Westbrook AND Harden top dollar? Rather than lose him for nothing, they got what they could. I could easily be wrong.
Click to expand...

they balked at paying the luxury tax and decided that keeping Ibaka was more important than keeping Harden, if it meant giving Harden the max. they would've had ways of keeping the cap hit to a minimum (amnestying Perkins being the most obvious one) so accusations of them being cheap have been bandied about ever since. it was a divisive issue back then, but with every passing year it's looking worse and worse. don't try and talk to OKC fans about it, though, they're likely to have an aneurysm and start yelling incomprehensible things about Bill Simmons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top