The 100 Best Games

One cool thing about having a blog is that I get to project my vision of reality as fact. Now this isn’t always the case and In fact I take great pains to be objective a lot of the time. But sometimes I like to let the old id loose and write opinion pieces.

Given that it’s my  blog, reality is equal to opinion.

Now when I write one of these pieces I typically focus on something trivial but fun on which there are a lot of passionate and conflicting opinions and I try to give it a particular (and fun) twist.  If I was talking about the best ever Rock Band, I’d rank them according to some personal criteria or crazy hypothetical scenario. For example, you: have a time machine, are booking a festival with ten slots and you get to choose any band at any time who do you choose? And in what order? My answer starting from the opening act on goes like this:

  1. Beatles: Gotta have them, you know, but in all honesty not a great live band.
  2. Stones : Better live act than the Beatles. Here’s a clip to prove that point.
  3. Linkin Park (featuring Jay-Z): Jay-Z puts them over the top for me, would not get in otherwise, I would happily switch them with the stones. Without Jay-z, I’d drop them completely out and bring in Zeppelin and/or Van Halen.
  4. AC/DC: Fantastic live band kills me to have them this low.It ain’t easy living free.
  5. Kiss: Detroit Rock city(nuff said). The costumes (and the Pyro) push them over AC/DC
  6. U2: Another fantastic live band, I’d take the early version (Rattle and Hum/Silver and Gold) and not the later over the top version.
  7. The Who:They’re incredible now with half a band and in their dotage at their prime? See here.
  8. Metallica: And the San Francisco symphony orchestra of course.
  9. Guns and Roses: Metallica and GNR toured. GNR closed.
  10. Queen: Nobody follows Freddy Mercury
  11. Pink Floyd: Well except Floyd.

Note that I left off some ridiculously good acts: Dylan and the Band, Nirvana, Sabbath, Van Halen (even if I did go to eleven). I even got a surprise ending (which makes it even more fun).

The greatest trick those damn dirty apes ever pulled is convincing the world that luke's father shot the one.

For the NBA, my favorite meaningless discussion is the MVP debate. The criteria is ill-defined, varies wildly depending on where you look and at the end of the day it winds up as a popularity contest . It’s also an excuse to do some cool analysis and post some neat data. What’s not to love?

For today, my criteria is to look at the best 100 games for the season(using Wins Produced see here for the Basics):

The best game belongs to the King on Xmas day against LA. That shouldn’t be a surprise. Does that mean he should be the MVP again? Not quite, let’s tally these games up and bring this post home!

Only 79 players accounted for these 100 games to date (Yes to T-Mac and no Melo  anywhere to be seen). Only 19 are in double figures. Kevin Love has a ridiculous 11 games on this list. Through 43 games this means that there’s a 1 in 4 chance that he’s going to do something amazing. Number 2 on the list, Zach Randolph, is a huge stunner (though this explains why I believe Memphis is the team most likely to pull a stunner in the first round).

You can argue with my logic but:

18 Comments

  1. Chicago Tim
    1/22/2011
    Reply

    On the other hand, Chris Paul never has a bad game.

  2. 1/22/2011
    Reply

    I have only one thing to say: no Rush in the top rock bands list? For shame. Come on, Arturo – you’re supposed to be a nerd!

    (my new laptop is dead already – back to using a Wii that doesn’t have a sensor bar until I get a windows OS disk)

    • 1/22/2011
      Reply

      Devin,
      I left off Zeppelin, Van Halen, Iron Maiden and Sabbath. Rush would be opening act to all three (and to any of the eleven on the list). It’s a very,very rough league. :-)

      • 1/22/2011
        Reply

        Rush started in 1968 and is still active! Longevity, quality, and variety! Best live act EVER (I’ve been to two of their concerts). From wikipedia:

        “Rush possesses 24 gold records and 14 platinum (3 multi-platinum) records. Rush’s sales statistics place them third behind The Beatles and The Rolling Stones for the most consecutive gold or platinum studio albums by a rock band.”

        They get bonus points for being Canadian, too (specifically, they’re from Toronto – they are the official unofficial band of the Raptors and the official band of NBeh?).

        #1 on my list!

        Linkin Park? AC/DC? Metallica? Come on. Rush, Zeppelin, Van Halen, Iron Maiden, and Sabbath destroy those bands (especially Linkin Park – are you secretly a 14 year old suburbanite?)

        :)

        But seriously, Love is the man. I wish the Raptors front office would be completely remade so that NBA players would start to realize that Toronto (only the 5th largest city in North America) is a “big market team” too, and then maybe Toronto would be able to compete for big name free agents like him.

        • 1/22/2011
          Reply

          Go rent Collision Course. I like Rush but AC/DC and Metallica at their height are better.

          It’s funny that no one’s argued with the top 3.

  3. EntityAbyss
    1/22/2011
    Reply

    kevin love is just too good. top rebounder in the league and in the top rebounding team. averages around 21 points in around 33 minutes (idk the exact numbers) and has a ts% greater than 58%. also has less than 2.5 turnovers per 36 minutes. the guy shoots 3s well. Just a dominant player.

    However, this means nothing. CP3 is my favorite player and thus the best player in the league. :-). next year, he’s gonna be 100%, average more minutes, assists, points, and rebounds for the skeptics. Best pg… period.

    What’s my point? I have no big point. I just wanted to say all that.

  4. Man of Steele
    1/22/2011
    Reply

    great to Boris Diaw in a table pertaining to the MVP award (jk, of course).

    Yesterday I was tooling around basketball-reference.com and looked at Love’s numbers. I was also struck by Love’s 3pt % this year, but that got me to thinking that Love has all the “fundamental” skills (like a classic UCLA big man). On a better team, then, I’m thinking he could probably have quite a few more assists. He seems to consistently make the extra pass, but there is just no one else on the T-Wolves for him to pass to that can make a shot.

    Maybe we could unite and/or synchronize the “free Chris Paul” campaign with a “free Kevin Love” campaign and get them on the same team? I guess Mosi might not like that, though; that team would be the only team with much chance of beating Miami. Anyway, it’s all speculative.

  5. Brian
    1/22/2011
    Reply

    Really? You don’t think the Beatles were the best live band on earth in 1961 and 1962? Have you never heard of Hamburg? Sheesh.

    • 1/22/2011
      Reply

      The Beatles are the Bill Walton of the List. Fantastic early career but then they went away. We also have no tape of a lot of that stuff. Every band over them could follow them.

  6. ilikeflowers
    1/22/2011
    Reply

    Miller’s looking good tonight, he and LeBron are pulling a tag team beat down on the Raptors. If this shakes Miller out of his funk it’s game over right? What’s that Denny? Oh ‘Crown their ass’ you say?

  7. some dude
    1/23/2011
    Reply

    oh god, that band list. It’s like People Magazine wrote it (minus Floyd).

    Beatles – They stopped touring, basically, from Sgt Pepper. Much of the material was simply not possible, at the time, to replicate on a live stage. The Beatles 1st half of their career, while fun, isn’t worthy of this list other than who they are. If they did tour the 2nd half, then they would be there. They’re not Bill Walton, because Walton didn’t play at all. Beatles put out their best stuff later on and it was recorded in studio, just no one saw it. Kind of like Wilt’s 100 point game.

    U2, so overrated. They were good, but never great (only a fee great moments). mettallica? eh….GNR, come on now. 1 album worth, pft. AC/DC and The Who are also overrated, but I’ll allow subjectivity here. And while I’m not a Kiss fan, I do understand the selection because they put on great shows.

    But Linking Park (even with Jay Z), that is just terrible. I’d call it the David Lee pick, but that’s an insult to Lee. Linking Park is bad music. I mean, everything else on the list is good, even if some of it is overrate. LP simply is not good. Why anyone would have them on any top 10 list, just ugh. This is the Andrea Bargnani of the list, easily.

    No Jimi Hendrix Experience? You really don’t have the greatest guitarist of all-time, who could play behind his back and with his teeth, who WAS woodstock, as one of your main acts? really? What an oversight? This is akin to forgetting Magic Johnson!

    Radiohead (Bill Russell) should be on there before bands like U2. And I’d go with Smashing Pumpkins (Hakeem) before Nirvana. From more recent music one could look at Arcade Fire (Kobe, oh wait you might not like that one :P). As mentioned, Zeppelin (Jerry West) should be on there before some like The Who. And Tool is far more impressive live and musically than Metallica.

    At least Floyd was 100% right.

    • 1/23/2011
      Reply

      Linkin Park for me is like Iverson for Bill Simmons, I’m totally irrational about them.

      You’re crazy on U2, you could argue for early and late U2 for the list. I love Pumpkins but they don’t have that definitive concert moment. I love Zeppelin but The Who are just better live (it’s about how they’re built and geared).

      GNR had 4 albums worth of fantastic stuff before the implosion. They’re also insane live. I really only think Freddy and Floyd can follow them.

      As for Metallica? Your argument is invalid.

      • 1/23/2011
        Reply

        Oh, and Hendrix is the ABA Dr.J (if he died before coming to the NBA). Legendary but not enough film to include him.

        • some dude
          1/24/2011
          Reply

          there are lots of jimi live stuff floating around. And certainly a ton of live works out there to listen to if you wish.

          I agree that the Pumpkins don’t put on a visual show, but a lot of this has to do with the era. At some point, thankfully, actual rock fans realized the concert theatrics were mostly lame and didn’t overcome the holes in the actual music. But I only brought Pumpkins up as being ahead of Nirvana (Simmons is probably right on his Pearl Jam-Nirvana theory, though PJ live isn’t all it’s cracked up to be).

          Park of my criticism is tough, because your list clearly wants to include the visuals as important. Personally, I want to hear the music moreso and find the uniqueness in it.

          U2 bothers me. Everything after Achtung is mediocre at best. I mean, you could at least have the argument for the first half of their career, but the 2nd half has been formulaic and boring as anything. They’re no different than Foo Fighters and Weezer once those bands hit their 3rd album. Seeing as they have just 1 album in the top 1000 at rateyourmusic.com, I’ll assume most actual fans agree. They are easily the most overrated band of all-time by the mainstream media.

          GnR had only 1 good album (4!?!?) and it wasn’t that good.

          I won’t argue with The Who, AC/DC, and Kiss simply because I can easily accept those choices for someone else. Even metallica (though Tool is still a better live band and must be experienced). But GnR, LP, and U2 have to go.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *