Droppin' grilled cheese science: rebounds
by jae on Jun 10, 2009 10:37 PM PDT
in Science
61 comments
I've said it before. Odds favor me saying it again: It's rare for players to see substantial improvement in his rebounding over the course of his career. Here's a preliminary look showing exactly that.
So here's a series of box plots. They aren't very pretty unless you're a stats-fiend like myself. But what they lack in aesthetic beauty they make up for in information.
These plots are a product of a dataset including every player who began his career after 1981 until the present. To generate these plots I took every player's per-minute rebounding stats. Since we're interested in how a player improves or declines over time, the figures are based on each player's yearly fraction vs. their best season. For example, if a player had his best season in year 4 of his career, getting a rebound every 3.6 minutes (10 per 36, roughly the average for an NBA center), year 4 would receive a value of 1 and all other years would be expressed as their fraction of his year 4 rebound rate. This provides a way of comparing players of differing initial abilities across time and across positions. The closer to 1 any other year is, the less change there's been in the player's rebounding rate.
Follow? Maybe? (Maybe not?)
I looked at three groups: all players, players who started their NBA careers after turning 22 and players who entered the league prior to their 22nd birthday. For each group, I looked at the average and spread of the Max_rate fraction for every season of the player's career. Only the first 10 seasons are charted as ridiculously few players play that long.
In all three cases, what you should see is that the average fraction (marked by the thickest black line in the middle of each box) in year 1 is the highest. This is in very large part a product of players who only play one season, including the 10 day call-ups you'll never hear from again. Similarly, players who only play 2 years must have their highest rate (the "1" fraction) in either year one or year two. But as time goes on, the average levels off and stabilizes. This suggests that even among those players who play 3, 4, 5, 6 or more seasons, there's not much change, and, as a group, not a noticeable improvement in rebounding over time. Were more players improving, more would find their "1" fraction later in their careers. And while this happens (the stats savvy out there should note the standard error does reach the maximum value across the board, the lack of an upward trend in the average after the initial 'short career' bias suggests that it isn't long into a player's career that what you see is what you get.
Of course there's a degree of variation and the particular cases don't have to follow the general rule. But overall, the trend suggests that rebounding isn't something that you can expect to change much for a player over the course of his career. And it doesn't seem to matter much if you came into the league early or played 4 years of college ball. If you can board, you do. If you can't, you don't and you won't.
This is still preliminary data. I churned it out while watching a baseball game and burning a couple of grilled cheese sandwiches. I repeat: this is preliminary data, and anyone with some advanced statistical training should see that this "study" is woefully incomplete in the way it deals with small sample sizes in particular year and short careers among other things. (It very likely ignores the rising cost of gasoline for the summer driving season.) But it's certainly something to think about.
More to come...
2 recs |
61 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
can you post a link to a larger image of the graphs? they’re kind of tough to read.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 10, 2009 10:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
oh and good stuff; i look forward to reading more as you go.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 10, 2009 10:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude, those are tabs to Stairway to Heaven.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jun 11, 2009 3:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yah. real good stuff.
was there earlier similar studies?
I like this ‘disproving basketball myths’ thing…
by lightz0ut on Jun 10, 2009 11:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
THIS IS MYTHBUSTING!!
Rec’d for the data orgy that will follow!
BTW, anyway we can get a link to the larger image?
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Jun 11, 2009 1:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
nelson has repeated the basic message
many times—that it’s almost impossible to make a good rebounder out of a player who doesn’t have the ability already. I remember him bringing it up more than once when talking about Harrington, or getting the team to rebound better (he’d say, yeah we need rebounding, and you improve by getting players who are successful at it) Apparently Jackson worked on it last summer through strength conditioning, and approached his career best, but did not surpass it, which reinforces master jae’s contention.
the people who kvetch how nelson is a drunkard or has ‘lost’ his team, i wonder if they actually talk to or observe the players closely. i suspect he actually impresses most of them with his understanding of the game.
by the.monk on Jun 11, 2009 1:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I remember him bringing it up more than once when talking about Harrington, or getting the team to rebound better (he’d say, yeah we need rebounding, and you improve by getting players who are successful at it)
If this were true wouldn’t a really smart coach get some different players?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 12, 2009 12:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, getting players isn’t really the coach’s responsibility (even if our GM is now just Nellie’s puppet)…
by Missing Barry on Jun 12, 2009 7:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just want to mention
You guys are look at these central tendency statistics on whether guys on average can improve their skills. However, you have to ask yourself… do we really care about what on average players do? What we really care about is the exception player - they player who has the possibility of improvement and who can make the warriors a championship team. I guess what I’m trying to say is if your goal is to see if we pick an arbitrary player off the d-league whether or not that player can improve, then your statistics are useful. If you are using it to measure whether a young warrior player can improve, it is a completely useless set of statistics.
by outqast on Jun 11, 2009 2:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
“What we really care about is the exception player”
And how do you propose, exactly, that we go about determining who the exception is? If you look at the Warriors in terms of probabilities, understanding the limits of your knowledge, this is very useful because you can grasp how likely any one player on the Warriors is to improve in this area based on historical data. Which, as this preliminary data is suggesting, the probability is very unlikely so you’re better off finding a player you know can rebound than trying to figure out which player on your team is the exception.
by Missing Barry on Jun 11, 2009 6:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And how do you propose, exactly, that we go about determining who the exception is?
That’s the real trick. Fans tend to think that everyone on their team is either an exception waiting to happen (or totally and completely hopeless and among the very worst players ever to play the game). Making moves based on the central tendencies is a better strategy for building a team. At least with rebounds, you are exactly right. Don’t plan on a player improving. If you need a rebounder, get someone who can rebound else you are more likely to be disappointed than anything else. Trying to find the exception wastes resources that could be used elsewhere. Find the exception who can learn to shoot? To pass? To juggle and tell funny stories? Maybe. But not rebounding.
But making better predictions to identify who should be closer to a particular trend? It’s perhaps not impossible. Nate Silver’s “PECOTA” tries to do that in baseball by looking at a picture that includes body type, age, prior success etc etc. Anecdotally, the best cases I’ve seen for radical rebound improvement were Camby and Garnett, both of whom started out as rail thin guys who didn’t really seem to have a position despite quite a bit of athletic talent and height. Anecdotally, this gives me some hope for Wright. If he doesn’t, then he, much more than Randolph, will have to add to his arsenal and learn to deal with SFs defensively as he’ll have a hard time making a living as a PF unless the rebounding gets at least back to the likely-a-small-sample-size-inflated rate he had as a rookie.
by jae on Jun 11, 2009 7:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would be interesting to identify those players whose rebound rate improve over their career and look for similar attributes/traits/indicators that may give us an indication of what to look for in possible exceptions. If you can find any similar attributes/traits/indicators, you can then look at the proportion of all players that fit those attributes/traits/indicators that actually improved their rebound rate over time.
by Missing Barry on Jun 11, 2009 7:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To juggle and tell funny stories?
Juggling can be learned quickly. Expecting somebody who’s bad at telling funny stories to noticably improve of a short period of time is a fools errand.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 11, 2009 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m still holding out hope for you.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 11, 2009 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm gonna go cry in the corner now...
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 11, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree… most fans think everyone on their team is an exceptional player. However, just because we can find a statistic doesn’t mean we should use it. Even if we further stratify this particular statistic, I don’t think it is particularly useful.
If we really want to predict if our current players can improve their rebounding skills, we ought to evaluate them with expert opinions (i.e. players, coaches, scouts, etc.).
Let me give you another example. Your statistic is analogous to looking at average scoring of all draft picks and trying to predict whether a random new draft choice will average 20 points a game. The average doesn’t really tell you anything. What you really care about whether a player is exceptional. You can run complicated regressions on body types, scoring in college, etc. but when it really comes down to it, you really need experts to try to predict whether they are going to be successful in the NBA.
by outqast on Jun 11, 2009 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My statistic is not analogous to the average scoring. My statistic indicates how common or rare a trend is, how pronounced the trend is. An average does not tell you about the highs or the lows, or how common it is to find something above or below the average.
“Expert” opinion should be informed by exactly how rare it is to see someone improve their rebounding. Scouts, coaches, fans, writers are all human and humans tend to see things that aren’t there. We’re fooled by random events. We have incredibly selective memories. And the rather hit-and-miss returns on draft picks indicate that these “experts” are often wrong. Identifying those areas where you are most likely to find success is something that conventional wisdom is often wrong about.
Experts who are informed by advanced analysis often have an edge over those who don’t. Why you would want to cut down on the information you have available to you is beyond me.
by jae on Jun 11, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also...
It might be interesting to see what area is the easiest to improve on. For example if we were looking at three players, each pretty equal, except maybe one shoots worse, one rebounds worse, and one has fewer assists; then we could use these stats to tell us which would be best to take as a project. If shooting is the easiest skill to improve on, then we would take the one who shoots worse, but is better at rebounding and passing.
Iwould assume shooting would be the easiest learned skill, since passing requires a certain knack, and apparently so does rebounding, but it would be nice to actually see.
by BLWarrior on Jun 11, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: I've said it before. Odds favor me saying it again
That’s hilarious. Although, if people were more interested in learning about things they don’t understand rather than making and defending baseless assertions, you wouldn’t have to. Hopefully this post mitigates the need for you to do it as often.
Great post and awesome sketch of your stereo’s graphic equalizer.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jun 11, 2009 3:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Haha
Great post and awesome sketch of your stereo’s graphic equalizer.
Another BSD classic. That one made me lol at work.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jun 11, 2009 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Randolph did grab that rebound.
Then he brought the ball up and sank a deep 2. Then a came up with a steal. Nellie, having seen enough shenanigans, pull Randolph promptly and sat him on the bench for the next 50 games.
by Aisander D on Jun 11, 2009 6:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Photo Link
The photo itself should now link to a somewhat more visible gif image at photobucket.
or click here
by jae on Jun 11, 2009 7:05 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Can statistics explain why certain players are good at rebounding and others, who might appear physically better suited to it, are not? Bonus points if you work in a ven-diagram of some kind.
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
by Supafishal on Jun 11, 2009 7:15 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I feel like I'm in school again LOL!
Great read! What happened to Mashed Potatoes “We’re better than the Kings” post LOL!
Beyond Golden State of Design... and than some!
http://www.tonypsd.blogspot.com/
by Tony.psd on Jun 11, 2009 7:15 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I personally would be interested to see how it breaks down
From 18-20, and 20-22 as well. But, that creates a ton of work and I could understand why you wouldn’t want to do that.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jun 11, 2009 8:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
younger players
The numbers are too small to get an accurate assessment. Only 12 players have entered the league at age 18 since ‘81. Of those 3 have only “played” 3 seasons and one left the league after 2. Most of those guys didn’t get much PT as rookies either to get an idea of their ‘baseline’ when entering the league. There’s just not a whole lot of data to draw conclusions from. Including 19 year-olds adds another 48 players. This is out of a total of 1959 players who began their career between 80-81 and 08-09.
I did run the same numbers only looking at players who had played 4 seasons (to get rid of the 1st year effect for guys who didn’t last in the league), split at age 21 and the graphs still looked more or less the same. At least with respect to rebounding, I’m not seeing much of a “he’s young, so he’ll get better”. It’s possible, (I suspect especially so if a guy seems to undergo a metamorphosis and finds a position (like Camby and Garnett) when previously, they were ‘tweeners’ floating on the court), but in general, a young center who is hopeless on the boards is more likely to remain that way than to become an effective rebounder.
by jae on Jun 11, 2009 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suspect the tweeners have trouble rebounding because it takes 100% commitment to the rebound
If you’re thinking “I’m a SF, or am I a PF? What am I supposed to be doing now?”, you’re not going to get the rebound unless it comes right to you. Once you stop worrying about that BS and just do what’s best for your team (go for the rebound or leak out/get back on D or slash in for the offensive rebound), your decision making and positioning become more natural, quicker, and more effective.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 11, 2009 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jun 11, 2009 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also I understand why you think Hawes will remain that way
I’ve never argued he’s going to be great because I don’t think he will be. But, I don’t think the numbers completely tell his story given the PT situation he was in, and the different positions on the court he was being asked to play. When, among other things, he was asked to do the same thing, he rebounded well.
That being said, your point is understandable because rebound rate doesn’t change regardless of whether RPG does.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jun 11, 2009 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m curious about the Rodman phenomenon: from 10.3 reb/36 as a 25 year-old rookie to 18.3 per 36 (!!!) as a 33 year-old. An increase of 178%.
Can we expect Randolph to pull down a rebound a minute when he’s 40?
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 11, 2009 9:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm guessing that Rodman showed that kind of increase because
As a younger player he was still trying to be a scorer and as time went on he realized that he could provide the best help to his team by simply rebounding as much as possible.
Over time you can see this in his career stats he went from taking 635 field goal attempts in 91-92 down to 429 the next year and then 292 field goal attempts in 93-94. As he got older he realized that rebounding was his bread and butter and he focused on it almost exclusively. Instead of taking shots he simply was going in for the rebounds therefore having a much higher chance of getting one.
It's all about the killer cross-over baby!
by warriorsfiend on Jun 11, 2009 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My memory of Rodman was that early on in his career, he was much more of an ‘all over the court’ defensive specialist, sometimes tracking guys on the wing (like when he was one of the designated Jordan stoppers) or battling in the paint. He was a nightmare of a defensive matchup. Honestly, though still a good defender, in his later days with the Bulls he did not put the same effort into shutting down his man and looked more to grab rebounds. It may well have been a good trade-off, but it certainly seemed to affect the rebound totals.
by jae on Jun 11, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I remember there was some criticism that Rodman was just padding his rebounding totals in those later years by never venturing out past a couple feet from the bucket.
Nevertheless, his timing and leaping for the boards was phenomenal.
by Atma Brother ONE on Jun 11, 2009 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I might be the only person who believes this...
..but pound for pound Rodman is the strongest player I’ve ever seen play basketball.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Jun 11, 2009 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t get it, is it a joke because Daye is about as strong as a little schoolgirl? All i can tell you about Boykins is all 150 pounds of him could bench like 330…
by Missing Barry on Jun 12, 2009 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
pound for pound Rodman is the strongest player I’ve ever seen play basketball.
What about Iverson?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 12, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not to be rude
but its only a 78% increase, anything over a hundred percent increase woul require doubling the stat.
by BLWarrior on Jun 11, 2009 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You rude man.
It never quite made sense to me (to my layperson’s mind, a “200% increase” should mean doubling, not tripling) but you’re right, that is the convention.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 11, 2009 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The wording of the sentence is the key. If it’s a certain % greater than or certain % increase, the original 100% is implied. You can leave those words out, though and say something is operating at 110% capacity, for instance, and that 100% isn’t implied.
by Missing Barry on Jun 11, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The theory as a whole is correct and I don’t need to read or see graphs to agree with you. I don’t know who is refuting your claims.
A more interesting study would be on people who were able to increase their rebounding rates and why. My guess would be, additional weight or muscle mass. I would then to believe that Biedrins boards could increase to some degree if he gained 20 punds of muscle. I assume this was the case with Dwight Howard and Dennis Rodman and could also become the case with Randoph.
Just from Playing the game my whole life, I understand the power of rebounding position in relation to holding that position. Holding a position has a lot to do with strength and weight and is the reason people like Kevin Love and be good rebounders even though they might not have a very good vertical jump.
by Balance on Jun 11, 2009 10:30 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Just from Playing the game my whole life, I understand the power of rebounding position in relation to holding that position. Holding a position has a lot to do with strength and weight and is the reason people like Kevin Love and be good rebounders even though they might not have a very good vertical jump.
It’s more about having good balance, a strong core, and solid “holding ground” technique as well as being able to quickly move and reset your “holding ground” technique when somebody is trying to get by you. What’s typically considered “strength” is not as necessary as having a strong back, strong abs, strong legs, and most importantly knowing how to use them to keep your balance and your spot on the floor. Biedrins adding 20 pounds of muscle to his shoulders, biceps, and chest is going to do nothing for his rebounding (except maybe make his arms slower). Does he often get pushed off his spot for defensive rebounds? I’m sure sometimes, but usually when a shot is going up I’m watching the ball, not Andris Biedrins fighting for a rebound. However, given that he’s one of the 5 best rebounders in the league already, I doubt he gets pushed off his spot that much.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 11, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mostly for giggles...
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/60685/sumo_wrestler_vs_female_orangutan/
It’s about specialized strength, not “bulk”. Is tug of war equivalent to rebounding? Not really, but the principle of “a smaller player with specialized strength and skills will beat an overall stronger and larger player”
But again, it’s really mostly for the faceoff cut scenes… yet another classic from “Man vs. Wild” that I wish they would do again.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 11, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, weight is still weight. Even if gaining 20 pounds doesn’t make Biedrins stronger in the specialized areas that are good for rebounding, the other guy still has to push an additional 20 pounds so it does help some.
by Missing Barry on Jun 11, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps, though where the weight is and how he holds it makes a difference. Another 20 pounds if he’s able to get set is useful. A soft 20 pounds that isn’t set means he’s got that much more weight to have to control himself.
by jae on Jun 11, 2009 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You have to find out the norm first before you can find the exception,
Before you analyze why the exceptions are the exceptions you have to figure out what is normal and what is exceptional.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Jun 11, 2009 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
Once you’ve found the norm you can also easily determine if the exception is really an exception or random chance (e.g. a quarter that’s landed on heads 20 times in a row. Random chance or weighted coin?).
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 12, 2009 6:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
is there any data on guys who switch teams/teammates? people always criticize andris for being “the only rebounder on the team” and that’s why he gets his boards. everything i’ve seen seems to indicate that isn’t the case, but can’t find where i would have seen that. do you have any info on it?
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 11, 2009 11:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
A couple of years ago I looked at one year pairs and found no difference in the correlation between rates for the guys who stayed on the same team vs. those who changed teams. It was very preliminary though, with just a two year sample.
by jae on Jun 11, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anecdotally, Turiaf was almost exactly the same rebounder with the Lakers where he wasn’t regularly the only big in the game as he did with the Warriors where he was regularly the only big when he was in the game. If Andris got a benefit from being the lone rebounder, it’s curious why Ronny saw no such benefit under the same conditions.
by jae on Jun 11, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
cool, thanks jae. i suppose we’ll get some more anecdotal evidence to that effect next season when andris will hopefully see a lot of time next to randolph.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 11, 2009 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Enquiring minds want to know
what kind of bread and cheese.
Also: any condiments, other than butter? For me grilled cheese is always better with a complement of spicy brown mustard (and a compliment to the chef).
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 11, 2009 1:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Whole wheat, mix of mozzarella, cheddar and what was supposed to be Jack, but didn’t taste right. Salsa in the middle is my spicy brown mustard. I’m not sure that the two would go well together). The real trick is to heavily butter the bread though. Nothing like butter to add the wonderful flavor of fat.
by jae on Jun 11, 2009 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Salsa in the middle
Ever tried making it with french toast, pepper jack, and salsa?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 12, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not a french toast fan, but pepper jack and salsa makes just about anything better.
That and bacon.
by jae on Jun 12, 2009 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not a french toast fan,
Haha, I’ve never tried it that way but I was thinking the egg would add some richness, especially with the bacon or prosciutto.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 12, 2009 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A soft but dense country white
either something like Cheddar/Mozzarela/Jack and Tomato or swiss and ham. And of course, as JAE s eloquently put, the wonderful flavor of fat in the form of lots of butter.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 11, 2009 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
For me grilled cheese is always better with a complement of spicy brown mustard (and a compliment to the chef).
Mustard is a must. I’ll go with spicy brown, yellow, or even dijon if I’m in the right mood. As for cheese I’m usually into some kind of cheddar or jack, or some combination of the two. Lately I’m liking some really grainy whole wheat bread for grilled cheese with a good portion of butter (Mmmm… butter).
Now if we are talking tuna it’s sourdough bread, toasted, with dijon mustard and dill relish mixed in with the tuna (no mayo for me), and some nice crisp lettuce, or sprouts, or both.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jun 12, 2009 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Randolph Soft
Interesting. Would think there would be some exceptions, such as Biedrin’s rebounding #‘s. Pretty impressive w/ the progress he’s made as a rebounder. His rebounding stats improved every year through playing time, strength gains, experience, and sheer will, increased toughness and maturity. Hope Randolph can do the same and become an improved, if not solid, player at the #4 position we so badly need.
by CJR4 on Jun 12, 2009 1:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
