Big Market NBA Teams

I'm happy that the NBA Finals had two small market teams this year. This whole playoff run I've been rooting for the underdog. It was great when the Warriors, Knick, Lakers, Celtics, etc. all got eliminated. I don't there is a clear definition of big vs small makrets, but clearly places like Los Angelles, Chicago, New York, for example are are major markets. Indianapolis and Oklahoma City are not. The NBA suits and the TV networks love big ratings and they get those when large population areas make the Finals. As an NBA comissioner once said when asked who he would like to see in the Finals, "The Lakers vs The Lakers".

More than any other sport, the NBA Championships seem to favor those big market teams. I'll back that up statistically in a moment. First of all, there have been 79 NBA seasons and there are 30 teams in the NBA (although there haven't always been that many). 

44% - In the past 79 years 44% of the championships have been won by either the Celtics or the Lakers. There have been streaks of a few years when they haven't made the finals. Those have been when the Bulls or Warriors have had their own little mini-dynasty.

67% - Two-thirds of all NBA Finals have featured either the Lakers or the Celtics. Many of those (12 out of 79) had both the Celtics and Lakers facing each other.

81% - Eight teams have accounted for 81% of all NBA champtions.

It would be fun to see new teams. And maybe its a new day where small markets like my Portland Trailblazers will get a break. 

Panama Canal

Here is a final blog regarding my Panama Canal trip. My favorite part, and really my reason for going, was to go through the Panama Canal. Of course there was a lot more going on. It was just over two weeks long, which is a long time as far as I'm concerned. Most of those days were on the boat, but there were stops along the way.

First, the boat experience. They have a lot of activities so folks had stuff to do. First of all, there were three meals - a breakast and lunch buffet and a fancy meal for dinner. They had a small theater where they showed movies. There was a jogging track on the top deck and a nnarby, indoor exercise room. There were live shows which were not all that interesting to me, but there was a ventrologist who was hilarious.

We started at Tampa, Florida and ended up in Los Angeles. Along the way there were stops at the Grand Caymman Island; Caragena, Columbia; Guatamala; and Puerta Vallarata, Mexico. You can pay extra to be part of a guided tour or you can just get off the boat and walk around. You didn't always fully experience the culture because you often encountered people and businesses set up there to sell their stuff. Even with that, being in new places is very inbteresting. Generally speaking, I don't think I'll do any more cruises, but this was fun and I highly recommend everyone do at least one or two.

Canal I

Now for the Panama Canal itself. It is pretty much a full day's journey. I think it took eight hours.We sailed into what looked like a big bay, went under a major bridge, then it began to narrow a bit but still pretty wide. We came to the first set of locks. Things becomes very narrow at this point. There were literally inches of clearence on each side. 

I wanted to see this in action, but there really isn't alot going on. The boat has to move extremely slowly then finally comes to a stop at a giant iron gate. Water is pumped in from below. There were a couple of announcements as to what was happening, otherwise you ight not even be aware what was going on. The boat slowly rises. You could only tell that by looking at a fixed object on the shore. It finally gets to where the water level is the same as the other side of the gate. Then the gates slowly open and the boat slowly goes through. The gates are huge but they say they're pretty much hollow so it doesn't take much energy to open them.You go from one right to the next lock. It's kind of like going from one bathtub to another. I think there was a set of 3, then later, on the downhill side, a set of 2. So, we make it through the first set and come to a giant manmade lake. When the United States took over the building project, they decided to dam up a river to create a huge lake and then not have to do so much digging. Also, the dam supplied electricity to operate the lock system.

History of the Panama Canal II

Last time I wrote of the French failure of the Panama Canal. Its kind of like Vietnam where the French failed then the United States comes in, only the Panama Canal excursion went quite a bit better than Vietnam did. 

Panama was actually part of Columbia. Columbia didn't want the United States coming in and building a canal. So the U.S. and Teddy Roosevelt, who I think was a great president except for this, not so secretly supported a coup. Panama became its own country and agreed to have the U.S. come in. Some in the U.S. wanted the canal to go through Nicaragua. Its not as mountainous. It is wider but has a giant lake in the middle which would reduce the amount of digging. It was rumoured that they had occasional volcanic eruptions. That was supported by the fact that their stamps had an actual volcano pictured on them.

So Panama became independent and let the U.S. start building. A big advantage the U.S. had was to go with the lock system rather than trying for a sea level canal. Digging down to sea level just probably wasn't possible. Even today there is constant dredging going on from the ssides of the canal eroding. 

Another key was stopping the deaths from malaria. A Dr. Gorges realized it was spread by mosquitos and they proliferate where there is standing water. So he got rid of standing water. They used to put the legs of beds in buckets of water to keep ants from climbing up them. He got rid of those and he made sure all windows had netting on them. Pretty soon malarial deaths went from the thousands to a handful.

The other things that worked was to dam up a river to create a giant manmade lake. Then a lot of the canal didn't even need to be dug, and the electricity from the dam was used to power the locks. Pretty smart.

Even with that, it took a decade or so to build the canal. Worth it, because now people liek me get a fun vacation going through it. 

History of the Panama Canal

This is a picture of the western end of the Panama Canal. That is the Pacific Ocean ahead.

I've always been somewhat interested in the Panama Canal, but especially after I read The Path Between the Seas, by David McCullough. He's my favorite author. He's written John Adams, Truman, 1776, etc. I've read all his books. If I had access to any of his high school English papers, I'd read those to. I read his Panama book at least a decade ago and then I reread it before my cruise. Its pretty hefty and maybe goes into a little more detail than one would need, but it's really good.

The story of the canal was interesting. The French had built the Suez Canal previouosly and wanted to do the same through Panama (or maybe Nicaragua - more on that later). The Suez Canal meant sailing from, say Rome to India way easier rather than going around Africa - Same with Panama, except here it saved going around South America. Even with the costs, it was a big money and time saver.

However, for tthe Suez Canal, the land was relatively flat and they were basically digging through sand. In Panama, it was not at all flat and it meant carving a path through mountains. Plus Panama had rough diseases like yellow fever and malaria.

France hung in there for many years, but ultimately failed. Thousands died from disease and  an awful lot of money was spent. They left the beginnings of a canal and a lot of rusting equipment. They sought to dig all the way down to sea level rather than use a lock system. That was simply not going to work because there was too much mountain to move. 

So then the U.S. gave it a shot. At the time, the land was actually owned by Columbia. They weren't crazy about a canal, but if there was a revolution and Panama became its own country, they would probably be more cooperative. That's luckily what happen. OK, not exactly luck. The US was backing the coup so they could get their canal. The U.S. cut a deal with Panama. There was a thought that Nicaragua might be a better spot to dig. To be continued.

 

The Panama Canal

I went through the Panama Canal a week ago. That's right. I thought I would write about my adventure the next few weeks. There is a lot to talk about - How the canal works, its history, what it looks like up close, what taking a cruise is like, etcetera.

I recently saw "etecerta" written out like that. usually it is "etc." So first of all, we're not just a little too lazy to take the time to finish the list, but we have to abbreviate the fact we're not going to finish it. Actually, I'm not sure I had anything more to add to my list. Rather than bothering to put thought into it, people just go the "etcetera" route. From now on I'm finishing my list or at least dispenising with "etc." And don't get me started with whoever thought we needed the "@" abbreviation for "at".

But I digress. For a long time I wanted to see the Panama Canal. Unless I wanted to be hired onto a freighteer going through, I figured signing up for a cruise was the way to go. Not that I had a bad time, but this is my last cruise. I went to Alaska on a cruise from Seattle and now this one. I'm just not interested in anything else. You can see Italy, Greece, Scandinavia, etcetera on a cruise, but you can go to those places a lot faster by other means. At top speed our ship was going 15-20 knots. Not exacttly sure wht this is and too lazy to look it up, but I'm sure a car or plane can beat it. Our cruise was 15 days long. Most of that was spent being surrounded by blue water and blue sky and chugging along at 15 to 20 knots. I don't regret going at all, but all that blueness gets to be a little much. I don't quite understand the people that spend a lot of their time cruising. They were offering a discount if you sign up for an additional cruise while you're on board. There were a lot of people doing that. Good for them, but it's not my cup of tea. 
 

Weird Sixties Sitcoms

There have been plenty of good situation comedies. The ones in the sixties weren't necessarily the best,

but I think they stand out because of how out their their situations were. Other than in the sixties, TV shows have all been about the same. Friends, families, or coworkers get together and have funny things happen. But in the sixties, the situations were just bizarre. Its hard to believe that so many of these exhisted. Let's check out some of them.

Hogan's Heroes - A German prisoner of war camp.

Bewitched - A man married to a witch.

F-Troop - A Western America fort in the 1800's

Gilligan's Island - Shipwrecked on an Island

My Mother the Car - His mother is reincarnated as a car

The Flying Nun - Her hat allows her to fly

I Dream of Jeannie - A Genie in a Bottle

The Munsters / Adams Family - Families of Monsters

Batman - A superhero comedy

Beverly Hillbillies - Poor people strike oil

Since then - Friends, Seinfeld, Big Bang, etc, were good shows, but had pretty normal settings. We need a few of those weird shows from the 60's.

Basketball Changes

 

If I was commissioner of basketball and could make whatever changes I wanted, here is what I would do. I have a list of a few of the changes I would make.

1. First of all, most of it would be left alone. Its doing ok.

But,

2. The time outs are out of control. When refs make too many foul calls, announcers like to say, "Let 'em play." Hey, how about coaches and greedy television networks with commercials that interupt the flow of the game dozens of times. At least with fouls, the game is still going on. If I watch basketball, I record it so I can skip the commercials, defeating the point of the commercials. If there were a reasonable number, I might watch them.

3. No flopping, i.e., pretending to get fouled when you're not. How about a committee of three reviewing each game and voting on anyone play-acting. They could be trained refs, or just everyday fans would do. Then, three flops and you miss a game - something like that.

4. Cut down on the three point shots. My plan would be to just extend the arc. No more of the shorter shots in the corner. Also, there wouldn't be enough room of everyone to come down, just stand outside the arc, and wait for the ball. Steph and Damian can hang out there, but not the whole team.

5. Get rid of the portal and NIL money in college basketball. Now, college basketball is just a different professional league from the NBA.

6. Have the best teams in the post season. Which of the top 68 teams will be the colllege champion? Answer: One of the top 10, or so, you other 58 teams really don't stand a chance. NBA - Having 20 out of 30 teams make it the post season pretty much guarantees that you'll have some teams that couldn't even win half their games. 

Postscript - I'm just ranting. I read some people's comments recently about some of these items and people really don't seem to care. They say they like the commercials. It gives them a chance to relax and use the restroom. Lots of teams in the postseason - the more the merrier. Untold riches to the college kids. They deserve it for their hard work. So I got my proposed changes out there, but there doesn't seem to be a groudswell of support for any changes.

I Hate Protests

I really dislike protests. They don't accomplish anything. The people doing the protesting get to raise their self esteem by thinking they are doing something awesome. They're not. I'll tell you why I feel that way. 

1. First of all, they don't accomplish anything. The one case where I think they did was the Martin Luther King/Rosa Parks, etc, social protests in the South in the 50's and 60's. I think people in other parts of the country didn't know how bad things were. It brought attention to it and that led to changes. For the Vietnam War, cuts in spending going on today, etc, pretty much everyone knows the issues already. You aren't bringing attention to it. Everyone knows already. You're saying that you are upset about it. Everyone knows that, too.

2. The powers that be aren't listening. During a war, the people that declared the war knew there would be protests. The fact that there are protests, then is no surprise to them. In fact, the powers that be don't want to appear weak by changing their policy because of protests. They figure that would just encourage more protests, so they dig in even harder. The Vietnam War didn't end early because of marches. In fact, it might have ended earlier. North Vietnam figured if they could just hang on long enough they could ultimately win. And Donald Trump doesn't seem like the sort to back down because people don't like what he did. In fact, he seems to kind of like making people mad.

3. You turn off the people in the middle. A famous baseball manager, Casey Stengel, said the secret of being a great manager is keeping the people that hate you away from the undecideds. On most issues I think the majority of people are somewhere in the middle. Protesters, especially violent ones, upset them and they move away from what you want. 

4. You bring out the other side. People that would have stayed home are now taking to the streets because you did. That happens for groups like Neo Nazis. In fact, they are all for you coming out. Their goal is to be visible and have others have a counterprotest and attract media attention. The more yelling and anger, the more they like it.

5. There are better ways to respond. Samuel Johnson said, "You raise your voice when you should reinforce your argument". A senator once said that a well written letter from a constituent saying how he feels about an issues did a lot more for him than a petition with a thousand names on it. 

You have the right to protest, but it would be better if you did things that actually made the world better.

 

Rene Descartes

If you don't have a favorite mathematician, and I'm guessing most people don't, I would suggest Rene

Descartes (Renay Daycart). He looked like a musketeer and, in fact, was a soldier for a time. He was sickly as a child and allowed to stay in bed for hours after everyone else had gotten up. He liked that idea so much, he just stuck with that routine pretty much the rest of his life. In math, he came up with the graphing on the x and y-axis thing that anyone that ever makes it through algebra knows about. It combined algebra and geometry. Pretty impressive. 

He was also a philosopher But, he is probably most famous for one particular line. and maybe most famous line was "I think, therefore, I am". Seems pretty obvious, but it made him famous. Seems pretty obvious, but it made him famous. What can I really be sure of in life? Maybe everything I think I experience is fake. But the fact that I am thinking right now means that at least I myself must exist. 

. . . I noticed that whilst I thus wished to think all things false, it was absolutely essential that the "I" who thought this should be somewhat, and remarking that this truth "I think, therefore I am" was so certian and so assured that all the most extravagant suppositions brought forward by the sceptics were incapable of shaking it, I came to the conclusion that I could receive it without scruple as the first principle of the Philoslophy for which I was seeking.

His last job was to teach philosophy to the queen of Sweden. It was early in the morning so he couldn't stay in bed on those mornings, but still, a pretty good job.