A blog about nothing in particular, with puns, drawings, and charts because I'm too lazy to write a lot.
All originial content by @DuckSauceGeoff

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Haters in History: 1787 - Haters at the Constitutional Convention

People even had to deal with haters back in the 18th century. The haters were pretty good at puns, too.

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

The Full of Shit Scale: Running Into a "Friend" Edition

While I'm gearing up for some awkward Thanksgiving Eve conversations tonight, I thought I'd share a handy little Full-of-Shit Scale. How full of shit will I be tonight? I'll be hitting all five stages, for sure.

Thursday, October 17, 2013

The Greatest Cut-Off Shirts in Pop Culture History

These days, Hipsters wear tank tops and action stars wear wife beaters, but there hasn't been a good ol' cut-off t-shirt in a while. So, I just thought I'd honor some of the best ones from the past.

The Difference Between a Flask and a Beaker

What's the difference between a flask and a beaker? It's honestly pretty hard to tell them apart. Of course, there are some tips to help people tell which is which, but it's still hard to remember. Even Bill Nye suggested a point of difference when he showed up on "Dancing with the Stars" a few weeks ago. His tip was helpful, but I think this is much more obvious:

Saturday, September 21, 2013

Funny Album Cover Art From South of the Border

A few years ago, I stumbled upon a Mexican radio station playing some weird (and strangely awesome) music I’d never heard before. It was like a cool version of polka played by big mariachi bands who sang in Spanish. And since I’m a sucker for accordion music (for no good reason at all), I was hooked. Of course, I had no idea what the songs were about (unless they said “coraz√≥n” or “mi amor” a lot), but I seriously enjoyed them.

So, when I got bored of my regular Pandora stations, I found Regional Mexican Radio to get a little blast from the past. The music, as expected, was great. The album art, however… not so much. These guys can sing, and they can definitely play, but holy hell do they look ridiculous.

Suddenly, I was constantly looking forward to the next song so I could take a screenshot of the next hilarious album cover. And after I’d amassed a hefty collection of pictures, I thought I’d share a few of them for everyone’s enjoyment and education. Want to learn about Mexican musicians? Well, here’s what I know:

They wear silly hats and make funny faces:

They use really obvious religious metaphors:

They wear matching shirts:

They wear crazy matching suits:

...really crazy suits:

They find inventive ways to fit all of their band members on the cover:

And they have really awesome mustaches:

Monday, July 15, 2013

What's Next After Sharknado? The Writers Are Hard at Work

Viperhole was a stretch when I typed it out the first time, but now it's starting to sound pretty good. Just have to let it marinate a bit. 

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Yield to PEDs (A-Rod Crossing)

I guess this could go outside of Yankee Stadium or Miller Park.

We can use the normal sign everywhere else:

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Chris Brown and 5 Singers Who Turned Out to Be Thugs

Chris Brown has been in the news a lot so far this year, and at this point, it's never good news. Now, whenever we hear about him, he's fighting or causing some sort of trouble. Even when he's not doing anything wrong at all, people still can't stop talking about things he did in the past. But it wasn't always like this. Remember when you first heard about the incident with Rihanna? You have to admit, one of your first thoughts was something like, "Chris Brown? The dancing love-song guy with the high voice? That guy punched a woman in the face?"

Before that, people thought he was a nice guy. He had to be, right? He was just a kid who sang songs about girls and dancing. No one would've predicted he could turn out so bad.

I was definitely surprised when it happened - it was a crazy story - but most people were really shocked. My reaction just wasn't as extreme because I had seen this before. Back in 2006, I was watching an MTV Cribs episode starring K-Ci & JoJo. I was interested to see them in this setting - I liked their songs, but I had never seen them do anything but sing. As it turned out, they couldn't have been further from what I was expecting. They acted more like the Ying Yang Twins than a couple of guys who sang love songs. It was hard to even imagine how "Tell Me It's Real" could have come from their mouths.

Somehow, I felt a little deceived. I guess I thought songs had to be true. For some reason, I figured a singer's personally would have to match his songs. But I was young and naive back then. Now, I realize that's ridiculous. Other people write songs, and they sing them. They're just people... and some people are assholes.

K-Ci and JoJo taught me that lesson, and they weren't even bad. They just drank too much; they didn't really hurt anybody (as far as I know). It turns out, there have been plenty of other singers who ended up being actual thugs. And some of these guys have done some real dirt.

Frank Sinatra was more of a wanna-be thug, but he did hang with real thugs, which sort of makes him a thug by association. Sinatra was fascinated by the exploits and lifestyle of those involved in organized crime. He became friends with some of the baddest mob bosses of the day, partying with them, performing for them, and (allegedly) completing some tasks for his mafia friends. While his involvement in any criminal activity is unproven, his relationships were well-known facts - he was even interrogated by the FBI after spending time at a mob summit in Cuba. Whether or not he committed a crime is irrelevant. The point is that Ol' Blue Eyes idolized men who robbed, trafficked, and killed for a living. 

With songs like "I Believe I Can Fly", R. Kelly hid his thugness long enough to get some hits under his belt. Though he had already been charged with battery in 1997 (forcing the victim to require 110 stitches in his face), the veil was completely lifted in 2002. In that year, Kelly was arrested for allegedly having sex with, and pissing on, a teenage girl. Shockingly, he was exonerated (though he videotaped this incident), but the nice-guy image was gone. In a way, you could say he was set free - free to let his real personality show, and unleash his true thugitude from then on. 

By now, everyone has heard all about the Rihanna incident. But since then, Chris Brown hasn't let up at all. Besides being a general hot-head/asshole, he has also violated his probation multiple times and participated in separate violent altercations with Drake and Frank Ocean. And he's still young. Surely, there's plenty more thugness to come.

Perhaps the most notorious miscreant on this list, Bobby Brown is probably more well-known at this point for his misdeeds than he is for his songs. Besides being widely blamed for introducing Whitney Houston to drugs, he was also arrested for assaulting her in 2003, and barely avoided jail time after failing to pay child support. He has also been arrested several times for DUIs and drug-related offenses, including an incident during which Brown led police on a high-speed chase, crashed his wife's car, resisted arrest, and pissed in the back of the cop car. Classy.

The last Brown on the list is by far the nastiest. His long rap sheet includes a theft conviction, numerous domestic violence charges, drug-related crimes, weapons charges, and assault. In 1988, he began a 3-year prison sentence after leading police on a high-speed chase that ended with various convictions, including assault of a police officer. In 2000, Brown was accused of attacking an electrician with a knife. He has also been accused of rape. 
So, it's pretty clear that James Brown is the biggest thug of this bunch. In addition, he's also hands-down the worst husband (he also fathered "at least three extramarital children"), and the subject of one of the worst mugshots in history.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Cartoon Dinosaurs and a Shooting Star

What's more fun than drawing a dinosaur? Ok... a lot of things. But it's still pretty fun.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Who is the Greatest 3-Point Specialist in NBA History?

Now that we've watched Kyrie Irving win the 2013 NBA 3-Point Contest, it seems like an appropriate time to answer a question I've wondered about for years: Who is the greatest 3-point specialist of all time? I've done the research, analyzed the stats, and compiled a comprehensive list of the best sharpshooters in history. Now, I'm ready to share the results and name the greatest of all time.

Ever since I was a kid, launching bombs with Steve Kerr and Dan Majerle in NBA Jam, I've been fascinated by 3-point shooters. But more specifically, I've always had an affinity for the true 3-point specialists. These guys have one purpose when they step on the court. It's no secret that they aren't getting anywhere near the basket - they're just going to hang out behind the arc and wait for a chance to launch a three. They don't have to be tall, or fast, or overly athletic, and they certainly aren't well-rounded. Still, these players have honed this one skill to a point where they are capable of making as much of an impact on a game as any superstar. 

There have been a lot of great long-range specialists, but it's hard to say who's the best. Depending on who you ask, you might get a different answer every time. So, I looked to the numbers to settle the debate once and for all.

Leveraging the resources at Basketball-Reference.com, I compiled a database containing the career statistics of every player who has ended a season in the top 20 of either 3-point field goal percentage or 3-point field goal attempts since the introduction of the 3-point line in 1979 (346 players). Obviously, familiar names appeared on the list, but I had to dig deeper. Steve Kerr is the all-time leader in 3P%, but only 38% of his shot attempts were 3s. He was a great 3-point shooter, but he was also a good mid-range shooter. Plus, his career 3P% was lifted by three percentage points when the NBA moved up the 3-point line from 94-95 to 96-97. Then there are guys like Reggie Miller and Stephen Curry, who are great 3-point shooters, but they're also starters who lead their teams in scoring. They're sharpshooters, but they're too well-rounded to be called 3-point specialists. So I kept looking, and I noticed these rare occurrences when a player would actually have a higher field goal percentage from behind the 3-point line than from inside it. This seemed like the perfect measure of specialization - what says "3-point specialist" better than a player who is more accurate from beyond the arc than anywhere else closer to the basket?

One might argue this is as much a measure of ineptitude (i.e. poor 2-pt shooting) as it is an indicator of strong performance. Sure, but that's essentially the point. First off, we're looking for specialists - guys who are great at just one thing. The goal isn't to find good all-around scorers who also happen to shoot 3s well. These are guys who only really contribute from long-range. Take the 3 away, and they don't have much to give. Secondly, it's not like a player can achieve this feat without being at least a very good 3-pt shooter - no one is shooting 25-30% from inside the arc in the NBA. Regardless, that's why I limited the search to the top 3-pt shooters from each season. Only the best and most prolific sharpshooters are included in the analysis.

Plus, this isn't the only data point I used. In analyzing all of their career stats, an elite group of 5 snipers emerged from the pack by meeting four key criteria. These players:
     1. Started fewer than 25% of the games in which they played
     2. Shot at least 40% from 3-pt range
     3. Launched at least 50% of their total field goal attempts from behind the 3-pt line
     4. Had a career 3-pt field goal percentage that was no more than 10% lower than their 2-pt
         field goal percentage (90 index)     

Basically, these five bombers have come off the bench, made a high percentage of their 3-pt attempts, predominantly shot 3-pointers instead of 2s, and made 3s at about the same rate of accuracy they made 2-pointers. These are the best 3-point specialists of all-time.

But first, some Honorable Mentions. You'll notice a lot of familiar names on this list. Ok, you'll notice all but one familiar name (see: Eldridge Recasner):

And now, the top five 3-point specialists of all-time:

Ok, so he technically didn't meet the four criteria I listed above - I had to round his 3P% up - but a "top four list" doesn't sound all that great. Plus, I would hate to diminish Mr. Les' accomplishments. The former Bradley coach (and current coach of UC Davis) ended his playing career with the highest 3/2 Index in history, and was one of the first to end a career having heaved more than 50% of his shots from behind the line. And if you remove his first two seasons (during which he only shot 15 3s), he actually shot over 40% from 3-pt land, while taking over 60% of his shots from deep. He also led the league in 3P% in '90-'91, and lost by a point in the final round of the 3-Point Contest in 1992.
One could make a strong argument for putting Steve Novak at #1. He has shot almost 44% from beyond the arc, and he shoots over three quarters of his total shots from long-range. Of the 346 players in the analysis, he ranks 4th and 1st in those categories, respectively. He has taken the idea of specialization to a new level by (almost literally) never doing anything but shooting 3s. Last season's 3P% champ, he has taken over 80% of his shots from beyond the arc over the last year and a half, as he tirelessly works to make the most ridiculous shot charts in the NBA. His problem, if you could call it one, is that he's a good enough shooter to make most of the rare mid-range jumpers he actually takes. But that's changing - this year, he's shooting just a shade under 45% from 3, while putting up an unreal 137 3/2 Index.
It's hard to believe Kyle Korver is halfway through his tenth year in the league. And though that doesn't seem possible, he has gotten better with age. After being asked to pick up a large share of the scoring load for a couple seasons in Philadelphia (ending the '06-'07 season as the team's #2 scorer), he has been able to slip into a comfortable groove as a long-range specialist ever since. Korver has shot just under 45% from 3-pt land over the past three and a half years, while setting the single-season record for 3P% in '09-'10 (53.6%). Through the first half of '12-'13, he again leads the league in long-range accuracy, and he shows no sign of slowing down.
Few players have flown under the radar for as long as James Jones. The long, lean, launcher from Miami is even one of the few players without a Twitter handle (Jim Les has one, for heaven's sake), but he has quietly put together a solid career full of long-range bombs. One of only two players in NBA history to have a career 3/2 Index over 100, Jones has ended seven of his nine seasons with a 3P% that exceeds his 2P%. And he's doing it again this year. In fact, he has almost completely abandoned the 2-pointer at this stage in his career. Sure, he isn't getting many minutes this year, but he didn't take his first 2-pt field goal attempt until after Christmas. Since, he has taken just two more.
One of the nicest guys in basketball, Daniel Gibson is also one of the deadliest from downtown. And with a career 3/2 Index of 104.1, he is far and away the best 3-pt specialist in NBA history. In an age when long-range shooters are getting taller and taller, this 6'2" guard is a welcome exception. He lurks at the 3-pt line, just waiting for a kick-out pass so he can drop a bomb on opponents from "deep in the Q". And when he gets hot (like when he hit 11 3s in the 2008 Rookie-Sophomore Game), it's as entertaining as specialization will allow. Gibson is on pace for his fifth year with a 100+ 3/2 Index in only his seventh season, while taking a career-high 68% of his shots from 3-pt range. And while he has had a hard time getting back on the floor since returning from injury this month, there's no doubt he'll continue to thrive when given his next chance.
I'm sure that wasn't the answer most were expecting. Have any thoughts/comments/objections/words of praise? Put them in the box below.

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Fun with Charts: What Employers Are Looking For in Job Interviews

Job interviews are annoying and stressful. But when you really look at what happens in an interview, there isn't much to be worried about. Interviewers act like they can really evaluate a person they just talked to for an hour, but this is really all they see.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

A Post About Kings, Pelicans, Hornets, and Jazz: NBA Name-Swapping

Today's match-up between the New Orleans Hornets and the Sacramento Kings seemed to be a game just like any other. And while the game itself was pretty standard, breaking off-the-court news made it unique. It now appears likely that neither team will exist in its current form next season.

Last month, the Hornets made headlines when they announced a possible name change to the New Orleans Pelicans. And today's reports indicate the Kings have been sold to a group of investors that will move the team to Seattle (pending league approval).

Obviously, this is good news for Seattle fans, bad news for Sacramento fans, and somewhat confusing news for New Orleans fans. I think this should have implications for a few other cities around the country, as well.

There are a lot of reasons why a team should change names when it moves to a new city. For one, it gives them a chance to distance themselves from the city they screwed over (think Cleveland Browns -> Baltimore Ravens). The Hornets decided to keep their name when they moved from Charlotte to New Orleans in 2001. So, they've been rubbing it in Charlotte fans' faces for over a decade. Better late than never.

Secondly, it allows them to choose a more locally-appropriate name that creates a connection to the new city. In some occasions, it makes just as much sense to keep a team's name in the new city too (e.g. San Diego -> Houston Rockets, Milwaukee -> Atlanta Braves), but this is rare. Other times, the name doesn't make sense in relation to the new city, but they keep it anyway. The Lakers moved from Minneapolis to Los Angeles, which is certainly not known for its lakes. The Colts moved from Baltimore to Indianapolis, where there is no significant horse-breeding/racing legacy. The Grizzlies moved from Vancouver to Memphis, where there are no grizzly bears. And the Jazz moved from New Orleans to Salt Lake City, where there is no jazz. Obviously, there are plenty of examples, but it's still not a great idea to take a name with a team when it moves - it just doesn't make much sense. 

When the Expos moved from Montreal to Washington D.C., they made the right choice by becoming the Washington Nationals. Previously, the Washington Senators had moved twice, becoming the Minnesota Twins and the Texas Rangers. The Hartford Whalers changed to the Carolina Hurricanes when they moved to Raleigh. And the Seattle Pilots became the Milwaukee Brewers. All of these changes made a lot more sense. Pelicans clearly aren't the first things that come to mind when you think of New Orleans, but they are the state birds of Louisiana. So, that's something, at least.

Additionally, a name change creates a clean break that can be used to make a complete overhaul. It opens the door for new colors, new uniforms, new momentum, and new history. The Hornets have tweaked their uniforms slightly by continuing the recent war on purple (see also: Milwaukee Bucks, Arizona Diamondbacks, Toronto Raptors), but the jerseys are still very closely tied to how they looked in Charlotte. If they want to go a different route, now is their chance. Plus, a new look is a good way to highlight a change in a team's fortunes. Now that the team in New Orleans is on the rise, their new appearance can signal their newly-established relevance and bright future.

So, it makes sense for New Orleans to get a new name, and Seattle should too (there's no reason to be excited about a Seattle Kings squad). In this case, however, Seattle will get its old name back. The reason the Kings are going to Seattle is because Seattle's previous team was stolen in 2008. And because that team's owners changed the name from the SuperSonics to the Thunder when they moved to Oklahoma City, they left the old name behind. So, to the delight of Sonics fans, their new team will look just like the one they grew up loving.

This is the way it should be. Think of how mad Cleveland fans would be watching the Baltimore Browns in the Super Bowl after being forced to cheer on the Cleveland Barons (or whatever they would have to call their expansion team) all season. If an owner is going to relocate a team, the least he can do is leave the name behind so the city can reuse it and start over. 

This gentleman's rule hasn't always been followed, but it's never too late to make up for past crimes. So, here's my proposal: if a relocated team has yet to win a championship in its current city, the name is up for grabs. If the original city wants the name back, they can have it.

What does that mean? Well, for one, it means Minnesota won't be getting the Lakers back. But, it does allow for a decent shake-up. Now that Seattle is getting their Sonics back, the Hornets name should also return to Charlotte. The fans will surely be happy to get rid of the Bobcats (which is a horribly generic name) and forget that the last few seasons ever happened. New Orleans won't even be using the name, so no one gets hurt. With that said, New Orleans should make another move of its own. While I'm on board with the Pelicans name, the New Orleans Jazz certainly sounds more appropriate. The Utah Jazz had a lot of success in the 90s, but they weren't able to win a title. So, it's on them to create a new name - New Orleans gets the old one. Even Milwaukee and Philadelphia can get in on the fun. If they feel like being jerks, the Bucks could change their names to the Hawks (who left Milwaukee way back in 1955). And although Golden State won a title in 1975, Philadelphia would certainly have an argument if they wanted to take back the Warriors name. They won the first league championship in Philadelphia in 1947, and won a total of two titles there.

I'm not sure what they would call the new teams in Utah, Atlanta, and Oakland, but truthfully, I don't know much about those places. I'm sure they could come up with something. And if nothing else, this rule will create a sense of urgency for teams like the Grizzlies... if Vancouver ever gets another team, the name is going back up north.