It's time for the Love in the Time of LeBron 2010 Season Team Previews. You know how we do. Next up, the most fearsome deer, the Milwaukee Bucks
Very Fun Team On the Rise
Why We Care
A healthy Andrew Bogut is the second best center in the NBA and Brandon Jennings once scored 55 points in three quarters. Corey Maggette is also a wonder of the world with his uncanny ability to draw shooting fouls. Other than that... Well, okay: I get that it's hard to get pumped up by Ersan Ilyasova, Carlos Delfino, Michael Redd, and John Salmons. That said, these guys can all play basketball, and with Bogut and Jennings, this team is totally capable of beating anybody on a given night. This is a team on the verge. If Bogut can stay healthy and make the leap or if Jennings can go nova and not look back, this team is as talented as any other single-star based team in the league.
Andrew Bogut: Thorny tangle. Chin valiantly breaks through.
Carlos Delfino: Mysterious beard, bold soul patch.
Chris Douglas: Sassy goatee. Commendable.
Drew Gooden: Sad Rasputin reincarnated in Milwaukee.
Ersan Illyasova: Underchin goatee. Has a slippery face.
Brandon Jennings: Pointy beard, hair. Impressive symmetry.
Corey Maggette: Very sculptural. Possibly a half-pipe.
Luc Richard Mbah a Moute: Long name, tiny beard.
Michael Redd: Maybe too safe. Live a little.
John Salmons: Living too much. Chin-fro.
Brian Skinner: Clearly glued on. Half off at the Irregular Beard Warehouse and Emporium.
The Hunter's Sketches
If They Were A Gaming System They Would Be...
A Sega Saturn
LeBron on the Bucks
“They aren’t infinitely many, LeBron. If that were true than all possibilities would be accounted for: even ones that break all the observable rules, norms, and laws that we have observed. Acceleration, for example is always acceleration, no matter where you are. The rule always holds. There exists no possibility where things don’t all accelerate according to the same basic principle. This principle though constrains possible interactions and can lead to more advanced emergent phenomena, where, for some bizarre coincidence of confluencing constraints, a highly plausible reality may simple fail to exist. Does that make sense? Just because there are many, many possibilities doesn’t mean that every possibility must exist. I love ice cream. Now, imagine this, because radioactive materials have to decay a certain way, the universe ends up taking a very definite shape and while there is some space for variation, that variation simply doesn’t exist in other places. So, while in many possibilities, I don’t exist, in all of the ones where I do exist, I happen to like ice cream.”
“That’s very interesting, but what’s the point of this?”
“The point is simple. These things that don’t change across all the possibilities: are they more important than the things that do change? Are they more essential to identity? Are they more inalienable? The universe allows for massively myriad variation. So are the things that don’t vary more important? In a sense, they are so deeply a part of you that you simply don’t exist without these things, and it all follows from some elementary constraint of particle physics.”
“On the other hand, you might be entirely malleable. The universe is constrained but the possibilities are so bountiful that intense and inconsistent variation is inevitable. There’s just too much possibility to realistically think that such anchors, such constants can exist in any meaningful way.”
Brandon just nodded.
This pretty much explains it.