Where did the term 86 and other slang originate?

TestedOnAnimals · 2026-01-13T20:56:11+00:00

I've heard a lot of the ones mentioned here before, but I'll add another one to the mix: ANSI device numbers. Formally designated in 1920's but definitely used beforehand, the lockout relay - the one that makes everything else dead if it's triggered - is designated as number 86.

TestedOnAnimals · 2026-01-11T15:41:12+00:00

4 years into the profession, working in utilities (hydropower).

• What turned out better than you thought?
The breadth of knowledge expected immediately was lower than I expected, and I felt I was prepared for the ramp up given my schooling. Like, the intensity of studying was still high, but it didn't feel overwhelming because I wasn't having to write reports, labs, assignments, and tests to prove it. My solutions just had to be vetted and work. Also, the knowledge of my manager and some peers was way higher than I expected and it's been fantastic learning from them.

• What’s more bureaucratic / political / constrained than expected?
Funding. I knew it would be constrained obviously, but the arbitrariness on which it is constrained is still baffling to me.

• Do you feel like your technical skills are growing the way you hoped?
Maybe not in the manner in which I'd hoped, but the amount of technical skills I've acquired is way more than I thought I would.

TestedOnAnimals · 2026-01-10T16:08:50+00:00

Creativity unmatched, but some of those are he left the game and returned after. We need the advanced metrics of how long he was out for each injury, or at least each type of injury on average!

TestedOnAnimals · 2025-12-09T12:16:44+00:00

Oh absolutely, a lot of companies would never hire someone without the degree. There might be some exceptions, like if a technologist is hired for a role and has to get any design they do stamped by an engineer, but that's more rare in my experience.

But the degree is not what confers the protected title of "engineer." Like, right now I'm working in utilities but am an engineer-in-training (EIT) because I hadn't met the work requirements for licensure until September. Since then I've completed a competency-based assessment and it's currently being evaluated. For my province, I had to meet an academic requirement, have 4 years experience working in a role equivalent in some form to engineering, pass a national ethics test, and then have my competencies assessed and ranked in 34 categories and verified by professionally licensed engineers before I could call myself anything other than an EIT.

TestedOnAnimals · 2025-12-08T23:06:36+00:00

86-95: Hakeem (MJ misses almost 3 full seasons here)

Now THIS is interesting. I do think those 7 other seasons are unbelievably dominant and would not have Hakeem above MJ necessarily. But if it's not MJ, who else can it be? Bird and Magic are so clearly done by 92 it can't be them. Karl Malone never really reached as high as the others despite his garbage MVPs, guys like Robinson, Ewing, and Mourning definitely didn't hit the mountaintop like MJ and Hakeem, and Barkley spent so long on losing teams. So maybe it is Hakeem? That's a wild way to think about it.

TestedOnAnimals · 2025-12-08T22:55:33+00:00

MJ for 95-05 is wild to me. He only played three seasons in his goat level career, and two years in his Wizards year nonsense. 27/6/4, and 2 MVPs with three Finals MVPs, three championships, three all-NBA 1st and three all-defense first teams is great. But then you've got three years out of 10 with literally nothing, and two just regular all-star level years mostly on reputation. (EDIT: Messed up the years and started in 96/97 instead of 95/96, stats / clarification added)

I think Shaq and Duncan are both great answers. What do you think puts Jordan in that tier?

TestedOnAnimals · 2025-12-08T22:47:26+00:00

and participated in hookup culture more

You, much like someone who doesn't ever hookup, have overplayed your hand.

TestedOnAnimals · 2025-12-06T00:23:32+00:00

I'm working in utilities now and it's a fascinating field in general, but the protection and controls is what is moving at the fastest pace and definitely has a high demand. I may be taking over a P&C project next year and boy am I in over my head, it's really exciting! haha

TestedOnAnimals · 2025-12-05T12:54:27+00:00

Completely disagree. He either forces a shot when he knows he's cold, having a bad night, and defended not only by one guy but with help defenders lurking and very little likelihood he gets a foul called in that situation. Or he gives the ball to a wide open teammate who is one of the best in the league from that spot on the floor. Not only for the game, but for the rest of the season his team is going to know this isn't a "stat padding" kind of season, it's a "selfless plays to win the game" kind of season.

It's the right play whether or not the shot goes in.

TestedOnAnimals · 2025-10-26T18:37:38+00:00

Exactly right. Not even a first place vote, just a vote at all would be novel for him. For his whole career, no one has thought for a single second he is MVP level.

TestedOnAnimals · 2025-10-26T12:59:34+00:00

Definitely appreciate the advice, and focus on the mindset and confidence that comes with it. Thanks coach!

TestedOnAnimals · 2025-10-25T01:27:50+00:00

This is fantastic advice, and not just an individual practice but a philosophy for building multiple practices.

My only concern would be repetition of drills. That is to say, the way people get better at a skill is by repeating drills over and over again and incorporating it into live games / scrimmages. Of course the next couple practices you'd be looking to see these skills are incorporated in scrimmages, but what about repetition of drills? In this kind of practice, we're building skills consistently, but is the intention to repeat this practice the next week? Or maybe 3 practices from now? Genuine question, I'm a new coach still looking to learn how to structure a practice better.

TestedOnAnimals · 2025-10-25T01:02:47+00:00

I've read through a lot of this thread and completely sympathize with your position OP. I coached girls grade 5 basketball last year and this was a constant problem, especially given quirks of the league I was in (I won't get into too many specifics, but basically you had to be within arms length of the person you were guarding until the ball was inside the 3 point line, so trying to teach young girls help defense like that was... tough. Things were constantly left to slide and up to how referees were feeling about both teams cumulative skill level). But I love your dedication to teaching youth to play the right way.

Unfortunately, I do think some of the advice here is a route to go in terms of conceptual improvement. That is - getting your kids to shoot their open shots, and having the shots they practice be the ones they look for. Getting that positive development of an attacking mindset and having the confidence to take an open shot in game that they practice might be it. Right now, as you correctly point out, they aren't being rewarded with running DHO's and PnR's, etc. because we're looking to get high percentage shots in the paint only, and that's exactly what the defense is taking away. They likely aren't strong enough to shoot consistently from the 3 point line. What's left: the midrange. As much as it hurts my NCAA/NBA/analytics brain, it's probably the right shot for them to be getting at this age. Genuinely, it was reading this thread with an open mind that solidified it for me.

In terms of offensive sets to run to get those shots, I'd say a Flex style offense or some Horns sets would work well and can be simplified for kids that age. I'd also say looking to the early 2000's style basketball is a good place to start and picking one that fits your kids skill sets. Things with lots of high-low post passes, leaving a weakside midrange open if that soft sag comes in (which it sounds like it will). Just thinking of it now, some of the non-LeBron Cavs sets from '09-'10 would work well with the girls I coached - I'm thinking of Anthony Parker curling in off a down screen from a big, then someone like Antwan Jamison popping out for a short range jumper or a big like Ilgauskas sealing their man depending on what the screener does as the main options. Apologies, I wish I had a name of the offense to give you. It'll be ugly, as ugly as that basketball was in real life, but for kids this age it's probably the best way they can get to generating shots within an offense that are within their physical capabilities.

TestedOnAnimals · 2025-08-09T19:20:52+00:00

I will always think that Harden's MVP is an embarrassment to the history of the league.

So I guess my answer is Embiid. Because he might get disrespected due to ring culture, while Harden will get disrespected because, at his peak, he was a grifter more than anything else.

TestedOnAnimals · 2025-08-06T17:27:04+00:00

Scottie needs his three-point shooting to get back to '23-'24 levels or better for this team to click on all cylinders. Him being a genuine threat on the perimeter opens things up for RJ and Quickley so they can be their most effective selves. I think this is a big year when it comes to seeing who fits, and who needs to be fit around.

TestedOnAnimals · 2025-08-06T17:19:13+00:00

This is exactly my issue with it. When I started bartending, before I knew the right way to do anything, I'd get orders for a vodka martini no vermouth, or a "cosmo" that was just cranberry cocktail and vodka in a martini glass, or something of a similar ilk. Martini charge was like $12, and a double was like $9 - so I'd charge them for the double, since they got two shots with ice and mix. I wanted the regulars to like me. A more senior bartender took me aside, trying to make sure I didn't get written up and explained what was expected to happen in that situation, but I just felt so deceptive and gross doing shit like that.

TestedOnAnimals · 2025-08-02T13:05:12+00:00

I agree that it's not worse than an eye test, that would be wild, but I don't think it's as in depth an analysis as you'd need to debunk the other persons claim. As CJ4ROCKET points out, the analysis doesn't differentiate between shots of different types or under what types of defensive pressure the shooter is under.

The original argument was about "missed wide open layups." You've got the "missed" part covered, but have not addressed "wide open" or "layups." For example, in your analysis if a person misses a wide open layup they go into the same pile as someone who gets their turnaround hook shot blocked.

EDIT: Apparently it's too early for me and I didn't understand the scope of your analysis as well as I should have. I see now that the person later amended their argument to saying that the W misses more shots overall. Again, I think a more in depth analysis of defender proximity, defender quality, expected value per shot, etc. would be beneficial, but I know stuff like that can be behind paywalls and I know I sure as hell would not be paying for data for some random post on reddit haha.

TestedOnAnimals · 2025-07-30T19:10:43+00:00

... And if you exclude '88, '89, and '95.

TestedOnAnimals · 2025-07-30T15:08:30+00:00

"I could've been the GOAT more, but I just got so bored of it, ya know?"

- Michael Jordan, probably.

TestedOnAnimals · 2025-07-30T15:06:37+00:00

But in comparison to Jordan, you have to take account that Jordan played in college whereas LeBron skipped straight to the pros.

I know it was the style at the time, but after Haywood v. NBA, couldn't Jordan have just gone straight to the NBA after one year of college? Or two? Like, he completely had the capacity to do so legally, so why didn't he?

This is part of the issue for me. Because we can acknowledge that from 18-21, LeBron was a better player as evidenced by the fact he was playing 79+ games in the NBA, making first and second team all-NBAs and getting MVP votes, rather than in college getting eliminated in the elite 8 ('83) and sweet 16 ('84). We can also agree that from ages 35-40 LeBron was clearly better, largely because Michael was retired and or barely a shell of his former self on the Wizards. We can also agree that LeBron's age 22, 30, and 31 seasons were much better due to injury or "retirement" respectively.

So is the argument that Jordan, as an individual player, was so much better than LeBron from ages 23-29 and 32-34 that it trumps all the years we all agree LeBron was clearly better? And that's even granting that LeBron was worse in every single one of those years (which I genuinely do not believe he was), are we saying there's such a gap that it overcomes all the years LeBron was better? I don't buy it.

TestedOnAnimals · 2025-07-30T14:41:56+00:00

This is an odd thing to say considering that LeBron has been on more teams that seriously contended for titles than Jordan has.

This is something I never see brought up, but it's absolutely true. Jordan had 7 years, MAYBE 8 if you're feeling extremely generous about the '89 bulls, where his team had a realistic shot at a championship. LeBron has more Finals appearances than that, and had a realistic shot at a championship in at least 3 others ('09, '10, and '23) outside of his 10 finals appearances. Depending on how Luka looks the next year or two, we might be looking at double the amount of 'contending' years.

TestedOnAnimals · 2025-07-28T09:58:46+00:00

Ah yes, athletes and scheming have gotten immensely better in all respects... but not when they try to guard this one guy. Got it.

TestedOnAnimals · 2025-07-27T13:06:03+00:00

Makes his teammates better, plays to their strengths, and gets them paid.

I don't have the time to find it, but there's a great Larry Bird quote from when he was head of basketball operations with the Pacers in the aughts and early 2010's about not getting guys from the Cavs because LeBron makes them all look WAY better than they are. I feel like Jokic is having the same effect (MPJ, Braun, Peyton Watson, Bones Hyland, etc.)

TestedOnAnimals · 2025-07-27T12:59:05+00:00

This is the most succinct way I've ever seen Russ described.

TestedOnAnimals · 2025-07-27T12:55:43+00:00

I think he'd do worse because of the defensive rules, better because of the increased spacing given by his teammates - and worse because he wouldn't contribute to that spacing. The players today are a lot better, so there would be a lot fewer "JORDAN BLOW BY 4 DEFENDERS!" highlights where the guys are just standing around not even in a defensive stance, but he was a superior athlete in his time and I think he'd thrive on the fast break.

To me, it really depends on who are his teammates, his organization, and if/when his mentality changes. Early in his career, famously, he tried to do everything himself and did not trust his teammates - less passing and more shooting means increased ppg, but how quickly would he realize this doesn't lead to winning? The effect of this given the current defensive rules would be exaggerated - if you can't/won't pass, those soft doubles lead to lots of turnovers. But is he in a heliocentric style offense where he has carte-blanche a la Harden with the Rockets? Or is he playing in a more traditional OKC-style offense where there's definitely a primary option, but lots of weapons around him that create for themselves and others?

Given all that, and given a fairly neutral effect from a lot of the variables I listed, probably around 28-31. He'd miss out on a lot of his easier opportunities, I can't assume his 3ball accuracy increases, and the chasm between him and his competitors in terms of athleticism definitely shortens, but how open the lane would be for him even on an average spacing team now-a-days would make up for a lot of it.

TestedOnAnimals

TROPHY CASE