Pop's assessment: Fact or Fiction?

[SenorSpur]

Pop recently sat down with WOAI News 4 Sports Director, Don Harris in a one-on-one interview, in which he commented on all things Spurs.

As far as his assessment of the team and it's recent playoff failures, he pooh-poohs the notion that the Spurs were not "good enough" or "talented enough" to hang with the Grizzlies. In keeping consistent with his comments made the day after the Spurs were eliminated, Pop cites injuries and overall poor play as the primary reasons the Spurs were ousted. If not for those, the Spurs likely "move on to play OKC and later the Mavs", according to our local wine afficiando. He doesn't want to hear anything about "age", "size" or even a "lack of athleticism".

The question for the masses is do you feel that Pop is being truthful in his assessment of the team's playoff performance or is he just delusional?

See the entire video here:

http://www.woai.com/content/sports/spurs/story/The-Exclusive-One-On-One-Gregg-Popovich/Oab8nuC7UEKc1gThWywtJQ.cspx

[FromWayDowntown]

I think it would be dangerously shortsighted to think that this wasn't a horribly flawed team. If Manu's healthy, I think they get through Round 1, but even at full strength, that team wasn't going to seriously threaten a title.

[SenorSpur]

I cast my vote for fiction. This Spurs team built an impressive 61-win record during the regular season. However, we all know the playoffs are a far different deal than the regular season. As significant as talent is, matchups also play a significant role in determining a team's chances for a deep playoff run.

The fact is this Spurs team was still undersized and was lacking the requisite talent needed to overtake teams like the Grizzlies, Thunder and Mavs. With little help from the supporting cast (RJ, Bonner, Hill), the Big Three were overtaxed - especially TD and Manu. They were required to carry far too much of the load in order for this team to have success.

Injuries and a loss of "mojo" notwithstanding, the Grizzlies merely exposed the Spurs and their deficiencies. Pop and even RC to an extent, are both in denial if they cannot see where the deficiencies are with this roster. To simply dismiss the Grizzlies series by making excuses about injuries and poor play is a clear sign of denial.

After all these years, if Pop doesn't feel that the better team prevails in a 7-game series, then he should probably consider hanging it up when Duncan leaves.

[elbamba]

The Spurs knew what they had going into the playoffs. Pop knew how the Grizz would try to exploit the size factor. Pop screwed up by not playing Splitter more in the regular season. Splitter might not have been the answer to all our problems, but by the time Pop realized the Spurs played better with him logging more minutes I believe the Spurs were down 2-1.

With Splitter logging more minutes in the regular season, I see the Spurs winning round 1 in 5 games and then beating the Thunder. Would they have won the championship, probably not, but they would have been a hell of a lot better.

[rasho8]

I think we need one or two pieces and thats it. Oh and get rid of Bonner/Blair lineup. One more big man who is actually big and an RJ that doesn't choke it all away all the time would be great.

[cantthinkofanything]

If he's sincere and he's making decisions based on that premise, then we're headed for some pretty disappointing basketball.

[cantthinkofanything]

Do you think Pop might trade himself to Dallas for Carlisle?

[lcroock]

It's not just about the Grizzlies series guys.

2011- 1st round exit 4-2 Grizzlies
2010 - 2nd round exit 4-0 Suns sweep
2009 - 1st round exit 4-1 Mavs

This team needs to be blown up. That's the bottom line.

[baseline bum]

I think it would be dangerously shortsighted to think that this wasn't a horribly flawed team. If Manu's healthy, I think they get through Round 1, but even at full strength, that team wasn't going to seriously threaten a title.

This. The Spurs have no one who can guard anyone on the perimeter and could really use an athletic 4. If they had a couple of guys like Tony Allen and Udonis Haslem on the team they could probably win a title, but no way with Dick and Bonner.

[silverblk mystix]

Sadly, I think Pop is being sincere....hope he ultimately ends up right and rights the ship...

[DBMethos]

Pop crossed the line from genius to insanity years ago.

[ohmwrecker]

I think it would be dangerously shortsighted to think that this wasn't a horribly flawed team. If Manu's healthy, I think they get through Round 1, but even at full strength, that team wasn't going to seriously threaten a title.

I would agree with this if I wasn't currently watching the fucking Heat and Mavs compete for a title.

[Interrohater]

I've never been one to be so outspoken about Pop because I know that he sees more than we do in practice, in the locker rooms, etc. However, I think he's fucking idiot if he maintains that having Bonner play in crucial minutes is a good idea. RJ doesn't produce as much as we'd like, but I don't feel that he's nearly as detrimental to the team as Matt Bonner is when he's not hitting his 3 ball. Of course, this occurs once the playoff lights are turned on. When Pop decided to play Splitter halfway through the series, you knew that he finally saw his error. The problem is that he kept playing Bonner. This team has weaknesses, yes, but if we hadn't gotten used to Bonner being in the game throughout the season and basically being on fire from downtown, then we would have had to find other ways to win. Once we didn't have that three-ball anymore, the offense was garbage because nobody knew what else to do.

[SenorSpur]

Pop has sold himself, and now trying to sell everyone else, on fool's gold - which that 61-game season really was.

[ohmwrecker]

I think every possible reference to "fool's gold" as to define the the Spurs' regular season record has been explored, expelled, exploited, rehashed, recycled and repeated . . . ad nauseum.

I'm surprised Giuseppe hasn't made it part of his repertoire.

[ogait]

I don't think he's delusional but he isn't being completely truthful either.

Let's not forget that during the season when the Spurs had the best record he was the one who always said, "We have the best record but we are not the best team".

So he knows the team has flaws, he's just keeping things in perspective. Now can he say everything that goes through his mind? No because he's the coach.

[Libri]

If Pop acknowledges that the team was not talented enough, then it forces him to make changes. I don't think Pop wants to do that and will try to keep the team as is, with the addition of maybe one or two minor free agents.

[SenorSpur]

If Pop acknowledges that the team was not talented enough, then it forces him to make changes. I don't think Pop wants to do that and will try to keep the team as is, with the addition of maybe one or two minor free agents.

That's probably the best approach. However, it's also obvious the approach he took, with the roster limitations that were present, was not the right way to go. The team IS undersized. Duncan SHOULD NOT be saddled with the same responsibilities at 35, that he had at 25. For him to dismiss the lack of size and skill on the frontline is irresponsible.

If he doesn't want to make any public admissions about the team's flaws, that's fine. Then, he probably shouldn't say anything at all.

For all our sakes, I hope Pop is just posturing for public consumption. Still, don't pee on my leg and tell me that it's raining.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

This team isn't built for grind-it-out style basketball games which is what the playoffs boil down to more often than not...no actual post players beyond Tim. Also, watching the Mavs, I see at least 4 guys that are clutch-type shooters. This team has Neal and Manu and really no one else who's clutch...another flaw. Perimeter defense is yet another glaring flaw.

So yeah, Pop's right, this team is pretty darn good, other than weak post play, no real perimeter defense, and a lack of shooters who can perform under pressure.

[objective]

"Maybe it's Matt Bonner (as starter)" -:pop:

[ducks]

pop is not going to publically bash his players
he wants to get value for them

[ChumpDumper]

Ian wasn't on the team, so there's no way it could have won.

[silverblk mystix]

Ian wasn't on the team, so there's no way it could have won.

But Bonner was...and this alone should have meant a title...

[ChumpDumper]

But Bonner was...and this alone should have meant a title...Nope.

[xellos88330]

Technically he is right. Then again, if you have a team where every player is playing above average then most likely you will win a majority of those games regardless of your roster. The Memphis players were playing out of their damned minds against the Spurs. The Spurs weren't playing well. Result, Memphis wins series.

[mingus]

defensively the team sucks, esp on the perimter and they were touted as a great offensive team this season too, but they struggled to get easy buckets around the rim in the playoffs. Duncan can't score nearly as effectively as he used to, which was a big problem. they're going to need Splitter to be somewhat if a reliable post threat next year. maybe go for 12-14 a game on ~50% shooting while Duncan keeps his 13 ppg.

[TD 21]

I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt for now and presume he's just being typical Pop, being the contrarian, not trying to get the fans hopes up, etc. In his interview with the E-N a few weeks ago, he made it clear that they're determined to get back to being a top 5-7 defensive team. That's not possible with how they're currently constructed. He also made it clear that they don't have the type of starting four they'd prefer.

We'll know if they're trading for a big by no later than June 30th (McDyess' contract becomes fully guaranteed July 1st). But it's more likely we'll know by the draft, which is on the 23rd.

He can't honestly believe what he's saying. I've got to believe he knows it's more about personnel than players needing to play better. Sure, they had some bad luck, as far as injuries to their two best players late in the season, but they're now 2-8 in their last 10 playoff games and 12-21 since beating the Suns in '08. So this wasn't a one off that can be explained away by "players needing to play better and bad luck".

[ohmwrecker]

Pop is not going to show his hand. He has to realize that there are some severe personnel issues with the Spurs, but there is also a kernel of truth there as well. Every single player on the Spurs, top to bottom, failed to play to their potential and certainly beyond in the series with Memphis. While Memphis got max potential out of every one of their players. The Spurs got outplayed. To a man. Period.

The best team in the world cannot win in that scenario.

[Bruno]

With Pop you never know if he is saying what he thinks. Saying that the team is fine put Spurs in a better situation on the trade market and to sell season tickets.

Saying that, if Pop thinks what he said, it's a true problem. A coach should be hungry and angry after this bad season and Pop clearly isn't in that state of mind. I have some doubts about his motivation. Maybe Spurs need to hire a high level assistant who could challenge him.

[jjktkk]

It seems that Pop beleives that if the Spurs were completely healthy, they would of beaten Memphis. Meh, delusional, I would of thought the same as well.

[silverblk mystix]

Pop was asked during the playoffs what he would say to his players before a big game...to motivate them...

Pop's answer: "Nothing-they are professionals!"

Well these "professionals" did not motivate themselves enough---or at all...

So...

A) is Pop going to keep these underperforming and unmotivated players on the team and HOPE that THIS TIME they perform...after 4 years of failure?

B) Is Pop going to take responsibility and "Motivate"

C) Is Pop going to take responsibility for re-signing these players?

D) Is Pop going to see the obvious and get new players, motivate these new players, and try to stay ahead of the competition instead of 3-4 years behind?

E) Is Pop going to retire and/or move to the front office and allow a young & motivated coach to take over?

F) Do NOTHING!

[DrSteffo]

fiction and A) and F)

[TJastal]

I've never been one to be so outspoken about Pop because I know that he sees more than we do in practice, in the locker rooms, etc. However, I think he's fucking idiot if he maintains that having Bonner play in crucial minutes is a good idea. RJ doesn't produce as much as we'd like, but I don't feel that he's nearly as detrimental to the team as Matt Bonner is when he's not hitting his 3 ball. Of course, this occurs once the playoff lights are turned on. When Pop decided to play Splitter halfway through the series, you knew that he finally saw his error. The problem is that he kept playing Bonner. This team has weaknesses, yes, but if we hadn't gotten used to Bonner being in the game throughout the season and basically being on fire from downtown, then we would have had to find other ways to win. Once we didn't have that three-ball anymore, the offense was garbage because nobody knew what else to do.

+1

Don't normally agree with you, but this is spot-on. That's the hidden danger of using a guy in the regular season rotation that can't be depended upon in a playoff setting. Whatever few extra regular season victories you get from this method absolutely pales in comparison to the disaster of trying to integrate other guys at the last second in the middle of a playoff series.

[TJastal]

Pop was asked during the playoffs what he would say to his players before a big game...to motivate them...

Pop's answer: "Nothing-they are professionals!"

Well these "professionals" did not motivate themselves enough---or at all...

So...

A) is Pop going to keep these underperforming and unmotivated players on the team and HOPE that THIS TIME they perform...after 4 years of failure?

B) Is Pop going to take responsibility and "Motivate"

C) Is Pop going to take responsibility for re-signing these players?

D) Is Pop going to see the obvious and get new players, motivate these new players, and try to stay ahead of the competition instead of 3-4 years behind?

E) Is Pop going to retire and/or move to the front office and allow a young & motivated coach to take over?

F) Do NOTHING!

Funny how nothing is ever Pop's responsibility, despite the fact he wanted all the responsibility as GM/Coach/etc.

[TJastal]

Maybe Spurs need to hire a high level assistant who could replace him.

Fixed.

[Fabbs]

"I'll never have it better then this, so I'm going to enjoy it while it's here."
Obviously this dipstick will continue to sit on his fat paychecks and do nothing to reverse the losing. Bonner will be doing 20 playoff minutes per game next year too. Soft Dick 30.

What a fluff piece too. Altho props Harris for at least bringing the subject of a big up.

[100%duncan]

fact, bad decisions down the stretch cost us. Game 3, nuff said

[all_heart]

What has happened to the Spurs is obvious:
1. The core got older.
2. RJ replaced Bowen.
3. Bonner replaced Horry (but with more minutes).

The Big 3 aren't the big 3 anymore, we need some serious talent on this team as well as athleticism of course. Blair is too small against the better teams. Neal and Anderson were the only bright spots this season. Splitter unfortunately was a non-factor this year. They better make some good moves or they are going to find it mighty hard to put asses into seats. Pop is either living in the past and/or knows good moves may be impossible to make. The Grizzlies front court killed us, not Manu's elbow...

[++SaiNt TiAg0++]

pop thinks its the championship years and everything he says turns to scripture, he's either telling the radio these things in order to get good value and that piece of shit ass that he calls bonner. or others and needs to remain positive about their involvement w/the team.

think about it were not just any team were still for dumb/oblivious reason a measuring stick around this league and front offices will say well if he cant be disciplined by pop...well what makes you think he'll be coachable here ????

so in a way i can see pop doing old school genius tricks if he hasn't killed all those amazing brain cells lol with shitty ass red wine, im sorry but im all for a new coach better now than dragging it out. stick a fork in pop if we dont get youth and defense this summer then pop MUST BE FIRED

[SA210]

:pop::pctoss




That is all.

[ChumpDumper]

:sleep

[Capt Bringdown]

Spurs fans need to get over themselves. Pop's got a system.

http://www.gifttrap.com/images/dreamflyer.jpg

[Uriel]

The truth probably lies somewhere in between, but what I'm most interested to know is why so-called thinking Spurs fans are so pessimistic about the state of the team.

Lambast him all you want, but Pop has a better intuitive grasp of the team and the landscape of the NBA than any of us could ever dream of, and he isn't incorrect when he remarks that this team could have gone further in the playoffs had things turned out differently.

The team won 61 games and was on pace for 70 wins for much of the season before injuries down the stretch (particularly to Duncan and Ginobili) derailed them down the stretch and seriously tampered with the rhythm that they had established throughout the course of the season. In fact, going over many of his claims, I'm inclined to lean more towards fact than fiction:

1. If Manu hadn't been injured, we wouldn't have lost the Grizzlies series. AGREE.
- Is there really any doubt about this? Manu when at his best is a game changer, and he played in the series with what we later found out essentially amounted to a broken arm. If he had played in game 1, circumstances would have been dramatically different, and a win (not implausible given Shane Battier needed to hit a dagger 3 down the stretch for them to pull it off) would almost certainly have changed the entire complexion of the series.

2. When we win, we're experienced. When we lose, we're old and unathletic. AGREE.
- It's worth noting that Dallas and Miami are two of the oldest teams in the NBA, even when adjusted for minutes weighted by player. By comparison, we're far younger now than we were during the years when we won championships. In fact, it's been proven throughout history that the veteran teams get the job done while the younger teams wallow in defeat. The losingest team in the NBA this year? The Minnesota Timberwolves, the youngest team and among the most athletic teams in the league.

3. We were good enough to make a deep playoff run this year. AGREE.
Tony Parker himself acknowledged that the Grizzles were merely a tough matchup for us and that Oklahoma and Dallas would've been easier. There is actually evidence to back up this claim. During the season series, we swept the Thunder 3 - 0 and won against Dallas 3 - 1 (including both games on the road).

And the best part about all this is that Pop and RC mutually acknowledge that they will make changes in the offseason to make this team even better. As currently constructed, I think this team, at its best, is much better than most people here seem to give it credit for and could have gone much further in the playoffs had circumstances been different. Did they overachieve when they won 61 games? Probably. But that doesn't change the fact that they nevertheless achieved 61 wins, and could actually have won much more if "poor play and injuries" hadn't completely thrown their rhythm off balance. The latter point is especially poignant when one believes that 61 wins in and of itself is more than the team was capable of in the first place.

Which leads me to my next point: Why does everyone (in particular the more reputable posters here on SpursTalk) seem to think that this team is broken beyond repair and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up? Fielding the exact same team next season, even with internal improvement from young players, will likely not be enough for it to be a serious contender for a championship. But that doesn't mean you have to fire Pop, trade Tim, and start stashing draft picks and young players for the future in an effort to become competitive down the road once again.

Don't get me wrong. It's not like I'm not saying that I'm absolute certain this team will win the title next year. But if the front office, which has earned the reputation as being the best in the league, and for good reason too, makes the right kind of moves, then I certainly think we can continue to be competitive. Just because they suffered a first round exit, Spurs fans seem to have forgotten how spoiled they have been and how extraordinary the organization and the people who run it are.

[silverblk mystix]

The truth probably lies somewhere in between, but what I'm most interested to know is why so-called thinking Spurs fans are so pessimistic about the state of the team.

Lambast him all you want, but Pop has a better intuitive grasp of the team and the landscape of the NBA than any of us could ever dream of, and he isn't incorrect when he remarks that this team could have gone further in the playoffs had things turned differently.

The team won 61 games and was on pace for 70 wins for much of the season before injuries down the stretch (particularly to Duncan and Ginobili) derailed them down the stretch and seriously tampered with the rhythm that they had established throughout the course of the season. In fact, going over many of his claims, I'm inclined to lean more towards fact than fiction:

1. If Manu hadn't been injured, we wouldn't have lost the Grizzlies series. AGREE.
- Is there really any doubt about this? Manu when at his best is a game changer, and he played in the series with what we later found out essentially amounted to a broken arm. If he had played in game 1, circumstances would have been dramatically different, and a win (not implausible given Shane Battier needed to hit a dagger 3 down the stretch for them to pull it off) would almost certainly have changed the entire complexion of the series.

2. When we win, we're experienced. When we lose, we're old and unathletic. AGREE.
- It's worth noting that Dallas and Miami are two of the oldest teams in the NBA, even when adjusted for minutes weighted by player. By comparison, we're far younger now than we were during the years when we won championships. In fact, it's been proven throughout history that the veteran teams get the job done while the younger teams wallow in defeat. The losingest team in the NBA this year? The Minnesota Timberwolves, the youngest team and among the most athletic teams in the league.

3. We were good enough to make a deep playoff run this year. AGREE.
Tony Parker himself acknowledged that the Grizzles were merely a tough matchup for us and that Oklahoma and Dallas would've been easier. There is actually evidence to back up this claim. During the season series, we swept the Thunder 3 - 0 and won against Dallas 3 - 1 (including both games on the road).

And the best part about all this is that Pop and RC mutually acknowledge that they will make changes in the offseason to make this team even better. As currently constructed, I think this team, at its best, is much better than most people here seem to give it credit for and could have gone much further in the playoffs had circumstances been different. Did they overachieve when they won 61 games? Probably. But that doesn't change the fact that they did anyway, and could have won much more if "poor play and injuries" hadn't completely thrown it off balance.

Which leads me to my next point: Why does everyone (in particular the more reputable posters here on SpursTalk) seem to think that this team is broken beyond repair and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up or something? Fielding the exact same team next season, even with internal improvement from young players, will likely not be enough for it to be a serious contender for a championship. But that doesn't mean you have to fire Pop, trade Tim, and start stashing draft picks and young players for the future right away.

Don't get me wrong. It's not like I'm not saying that I'm absolute certain this team will win the title next year. But if the front office, which has earned the reputation as the best in the league, and for good reason, makes the right kind of moves, then I certainly think we can continue to be competitive. Just because they suffered a first round exit, Spurs fans seem to have forgotten how spoiled they are and how extraordinary an organization their favorite team operates in is.

WHY?

Because, if you were watching, Pop has consistently made baffling decision after baffling decision. The people who would (and never will) never question Pop will just continue to say what you already said. Pop knows better than all of us.

The people who gave Pop the benefit of the doubt when Pop benched Bowen in favor of Finley (and who would scream at Bowen for ONE missed assignment---and promptly bench him--yet allow Finley to remain on the floor after being torched at will by EVERYONE!), or when Pop went small and never played Rasho, Nazr, etc... in the playoffs after a solid season of semi-tall ball and went micro small...
Or when Pop (once Finley betrayed Pop & the team) turned to BONNER and overplayed him until the spurs were so weak defensively that an 8th seed TANKED to play the spurs....

Well these people finally decided that it wasn't just an aberration...Pop has completely reversed course from what won 4 titles in the first place...

To hear Pop parroting the same shit in 2008,2009,2010 & now 2011..."when we win we're experienced...when we lose we're old"..."we don't need to change the big 3"... "we just didn't make shots".... "our defense was ok-but they played better"....blah-blah....

To hear this year in and year out after Bonner is choking yet again...would pretty much tell you that Pop is going to run this team into the fuckin' ground into continued mediocrity.

Unless you think that just making the playoffs is a real accomplishment.

[TJastal]

WHY?

Because, if you were watching, Pop has consistently made baffling decision after baffling decision. The people who would (and never will) never question Pop will just continue to say what you already said. Pop knows better than all of us.

The people who gave Pop the benefit of the doubt when Pop benched Bowen in favor of Finley (and who would scream at Bowen for ONE missed assignment---and promptly bench him--yet allow Finley to remain on the floor after being torched at will by EVERYONE!), or when Pop went small and never played Rasho, Nazr, etc... in the playoffs after a solid season of semi-tall ball and went micro small...
Or when Pop (once Finley betrayed Pop & the team) turned to BONNER and overplayed him until the spurs were so weak defensively that an 8th seed TANKED to play the spurs....

Well these people finally decided that it wasn't just an aberration...Pop has completely reversed course from what won 4 titles in the first place...

To hear Pop parroting the same shit in 2008,2009,2010 & now 2011..."when we win we're experienced...when we lose we're old"..."we don't need to change the big 3"... "we just didn't make shots".... "our defense was ok-but they played better"....blah-blah....

To hear this year in and year out after Bonner is choking yet again...would pretty much tell you that Pop is going to run this team into the fuckin' ground into continued mediocrity.

Unless you think that just making the playoffs is a real accomplishment.

+1
This long-winded popsucker is one of the more annoying varieties on the forum (they come in all shapes and sizes). At least he preludes his sermon by saying "the truth probably lies somewhere in between, but...", which is an obvious tip-off that the rest of his spiel is gonna be filled with the same ol' canards & bullshit we've come to expect from these types, just rehashed and updated to fit the current landscape.

[Uriel]

WHY?

Because, if you were watching, Pop has consistently made baffling decision after baffling decision. The people who would (and never will) never question Pop will just continue to say what you already said. Pop knows better than all of us.

The people who gave Pop the benefit of the doubt when Pop benched Bowen in favor of Finley (and who would scream at Bowen for ONE missed assignment---and promptly bench him--yet allow Finley to remain on the floor after being torched at will by EVERYONE!), or when Pop went small and never played Rasho, Nazr, etc... in the playoffs after a solid season of semi-tall ball and went micro small...
Or when Pop (once Finley betrayed Pop & the team) turned to BONNER and overplayed him until the spurs were so weak defensively that an 8th seed TANKED to play the spurs....

Well these people finally decided that it wasn't just an aberration...Pop has completely reversed course from what won 4 titles in the first place...

To hear Pop parroting the same shit in 2008,2009,2010 & now 2011..."when we win we're experienced...when we lose we're old"..."we don't need to change the big 3"... "we just didn't make shots".... "our defense was ok-but they played better"....blah-blah....

To hear this year in and year out after Bonner is choking yet again...would pretty much tell you that Pop is going to run this team into the fuckin' ground into continued mediocrity.

Unless you think that just making the playoffs is a real accomplishment.

I'm not saying Pop is above criticism. All I'm saying is, he isn't spewing out the arbitrary nonsense or pure fiction many people on this message board seem to claim he is. And the entirety of your argument seems to consist of subjective opinion backed by offhand anecdotes that seems predicated on the assumption that the aforementioned was right in the first place, though with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Hence, your argument is self-contradictory.


+1
This long-winded popsucker is one of the more annoying varieties on the forum (they come in all shapes and sizes). At least he preludes his sermon by saying "the truth probably lies somewhere in between, but...", which is an obvious tip-off that the rest of his spiel is gonna be filled with the same ol' canards & bullshit we've come to expect from these types, just rehashed and updated to fit the current landscape.

Ad hominem. Personal attack. Hasty generalization. Slippery slope. Post hoc. Poisoning the well. Red herring. I could go on, but I think it would be better if you simply read up on your logical fallacies first before attempting to make a reasoned argument.

Again, I'm not saying Pop was right. I never said that Pop shouldn't be criticized because of his credentials. I never said his assessment of the team was completely accurate. And I never acceded completely to his view of the state of the team. After all, I did qualify my "sermon" by stating that the truth probably lied somewhere in between, and I emphasize it once again. But just because we lost to the Memphis Grizzlies doesn't mean Pop is some psychotic, deranged lunatic who is completely incompetent as a basketball coach, and that he should be fired immediately, assuming of course that SpursTalk hasn't already done that in a literal sense. Criticizing his decisions which may have led to the result it eventually procured is perfectly fair. But demanding that the man's body be burned at the stake because he had the audacity to disagree, on the other hand, is just plain capricious.

[Uriel]

SenorSpur, I posted this in the Matt Bonner thread in the Think Tank forum, but since you didn't respond, and since this post more or less applies to the topic of this thread anyway, I'm just going to go right ahead and post it here too.


I will admit that Bonner's dufus running style and clumsy appearance doesn't do himself any justice. It certainly doesn't help his cause with most. However most reasonable people focus on production - or his case, the lack thereof.

Of course, you are correct on one point. The decline in 3-pt shooting was team wide, but it affect Bonner more because 3-pt shooting is his ONLY skill - which makes him a severe on-court liability, when he's not hitting shots.

As far as Bonner getting abused in the paint, that's not perception - that is cold-hearted reality. All anyone need to do is watch the playoff series versus the Grizzlies. At times, it was very easy to predict where the source of the Grizzlies low-post offense would originate - it was whoever Bonner was guarding, when he was in the game. When you're a one-dimensional, single-skilled player, who is also a defensive liability, in opposing players and coaches will zero in on that weakness.

It's obvious to anyone watching that his playoff contributions have been left wanting. He's a decent role player, but he should not be a major rotation player on any team with championship aspirations. He's just not good enough. Meanwhile, Pop is wasting time and compromising his team's success by constantly rolling Bonner out there in clutch situation and expecting different results. All of which makes Pop an idiot. For such a smart man, Pop is giving in to the definition of idiocracy.

Say whatever you want. It doesn't matter what happens during the regular season. All I know is what I see. It occurs every year about this time. It's an annual event just like the changing of the four seasons or the Swallows invading Capistrano. That is, when playoff time rolls around, when the lights get bright and the playoff pressure turns up, Matt Bonner is nowhere to be found. That, my friend, cannot be disputed.

During the playoffs, 48 Minutes of Hell wrote an excellent post (http://www.48minutesofhell.com/is-matt-bonner-earning-his-minutes) entitled, "Is Matt Bonner earning his minutes?" Here's an excerpt from it:


Throughout the series, Memphis has relentlessly attacked Bonner on the block. But they’re actually not scoring as often as I would have guessed. According to Synergy Sports, this is how Bonner has fared in the post:

Arthur – Miss J
Arthur – Make J
Randolph – TO
Arthur – Miss 2
Randolph – TO
Gasol – And 1
Gasol – Make Jumper
Arthur – Make Jumper
Arthur – Make Jumper
Arthur – Miss Jumper
Arthur – Miss Layup
Gasol – TO
Arthur – ISO +1

In other words, in 13 defensive post possessions the Grizzlies scored on Bonner 6 times. Not great, but Bonner wasn’t obliterated either.
As I have tried to argue, much of the criticism that has been levied at Matt Bonner has been excessive and, to a certain extent, unwarranted. The fact that Timothy Varner, the author of the article, would concede that he guessed Bonner was scored on more often in the post, only to have the stats repudiate that, lends credence to the notion that the criticism aimed at Bonner is grounded not so much in reality but perception.

One particularly cogent argument that Bonner apologists have used all season long is his surprisingly and consistently high plus-minus rating. Of course, you did remark that what happens in the regular season is irrelevant to the discussion because, "When playoff time rolls around, when the lights get bright and the playoff pressure turns up, Matt Bonner is nowhere to be found." But a closer look at his plus-minus rating for the playoffs (http://basketballvalue.com/teamunits.php?year=2011%20playoffs&sortnumber=17&sortorder=DESC&team=SAS) actually says otherwise.

Of the 11 units that yielded a net positive plus-minus rating, Matt Bonner appeared in 7 of them, including the top 6. Granted, Bonner detractors will point to the fact that Bonner also appears in 7 out of the 12 units that yielded a negative rating. But, as Varner astutely pointed out in his blog post, "It doesn’t establish the illegitimacy of Bonner’s minutes, it only establishes that Coach Popovich must carefully deploy Matt Bonner. Matt Bonner, then, is a kind of high risk/high reward player. Used with the right combination of players, he’s a help. Used wrongly, he hurts the team."

And this is exactly the point I've been trying to make all along. Matt Bonner hasn't succeeded in the postseason because he hasn't been put in a good position to do so. The fact that, when deployed with the right combination of players, he has been able to yield a positive plus-minus rating, and is featured in the 6 most effective units the team has used against the Grizzlies strongly suggests that, when used correctly, Bonner is more of an asset than a liability.

It's worth noting that the latter observation still holds true in spite of the fact that Bonner shot only 33% from 3 in the playoffs this season. That means that, contrary to popular belief, he can still help put the team in a position to win even when he's not knocking down 3 pointers. At first, this may seem counterintuitive, but it's easy to forget that being a 3-point specializing big man comes with other sets of advantages.

Matt Bonner spreads the floor, which, as I'm sure you're well aware, has the advantage of keeping the defense honest and luring big men away from the rim, making the penetrating of Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili a lot more potent, as well as adding another dimension to the offense in the form of a big man's perimeter shot making. The fact that they haven't fallen nearly to the same extent in the playoffs doesn't take away from the reality that the mere potential for it to be used does go a long way to helping the Spurs offense, which has been the 2nd most efficient in the regular season in the NBA, keep chugging along. The fact that Bonner apologists have used this argument ad nauseam to the point of it being satirized here in SpursTalk should not take away from its significance.

Now, with all that said, if Matt Bonner continues to be used ineffectively, does that make him a legitimate major role player in a team with championship aspirations? Probably not. But the fact that, when paired with the right players, he becomes a major asset to the team should, in and of itself, warrant his getting minutes in the playoffs.

You called Pop and idiot for succumbing to the very definition of idiocy, and I'm fairly certain you alluded to Einstein here when he defined insanity as, "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." But I think it's actually the other way around. Pop would be insane to give Matt Bonner consistent regular season minutes when he led the league in 3-point percentage only to suddenly take that away in the playoffs when he finds himself unable to produce at the same rate. Because that, my friend, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If he's been reliable all season long for us, would it make sense to suddenly pull the plug on him when he's become part of the chemistry that has been developed as well as a major contributor to the team with the best regular season record in the conference, especially when one considers the intangibles he offers?

I said this at the top of this excessively long post, and I'll say it again. Much of the criticism that has been levied at Matt Bonner is excessive, and to a certain extent, unjustified. Previously, I tried to argue that this could be a result of subtle forms of discrimination against his physical appearance. Though you did respond by stating that reasonable people like yourself ground this criticism on his production, or lack thereof, I have tried to show that this is in fact, not the case. Because when one looks at the evidence, one can unequivocally see that Matt Bonner has helped this team more than he has hurt it overall, and that his being lambasted is not grounded so much in reality as it is in perception.

[GSH]

Pop wisecracked through parts of that interview. But I didn't get the feeling that he was joking when he said, "We just needed guys to play better in the playoffs." And that's scary. The Spurs got their asses kicked in the playoffs, plain and simple. And the same team kicked their asses in the regular season. If guys would have played better... If they had been 100% healthy... If everything goes perfect, we could advance further into the playoffs. Well, If you want to be a coin-toss team, I guess that approach makes sense.

Personally, I think the guy is in denial about the fact that Tim is aging. He has the utmost respect for Tim, as he should. (As everybody in the league should.) But I don't think he's willing to talk about the fact that every player eventually declines, and Tim is finally at that point. It's not about whether the team needs to get taller... they need to get a big, strong pipe-weilding mother... (sorry, Pulp Fiction flashback). They need a young, athletic big man to give Tim some help inside.

A appreciate Pop's loyalty. But that's about all I can say for that interview. The parts that weren't joking were just stupid.

[TJastal]

I'm not saying Pop is above criticism. All I'm saying is, he isn't spewing out the arbitrary nonsense or pure fiction many people on this message board seem to claim he is. And the entirety of your argument seems to consist of subjective opinion backed by offhand anecdotes that seems predicated on the assumption that the aforementioned was right in the first place, though with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Hence, your argument is self-contradictory.



Ad hominem. Personal attack. Hasty generalization. Slippery slope. Post hoc. Poisoning the well. Red herring. I could go on, but I think it would be better if you simply read up on your logical fallacies first before attempting to make a reasoned argument.

Again, I'm not saying Pop was right. I never said that Pop shouldn't be criticized because of his credentials. I never said his assessment of the team was completely accurate. And I never acceded completely to his view of the state of the team. After all, I did qualify my "sermon" by stating that the truth probably lied somewhere in between, and I emphasize it once again. But just because we lost to the Memphis Grizzlies doesn't mean Pop is some psychotic, deranged lunatic who is completely incompetent as a basketball coach, and that he should be fired immediately, assuming of course that SpursTalk hasn't already done that in a literal sense. Criticizing his decisions which may have led to the result it eventually procured is perfectly fair. But demanding that the man's body be burned at the stake because he had the audacity to disagree, on the other hand, is just plain capricious.

You're accumulating an impress body of work here at spurstalk. I took the liberty to find some of your other "takes", seems you have a fondness for Matt Bonner of all people.

Former quotes from pop/bonner apologist uriel:


Maybe so, but I'm partial to intrinsically intelligent people. I wouldn't exactly refer to myself as a Matt Bonner apologist, but I don't think he's being judged as fairly as he could.

His so-called "well-earned reputation as a playoff choker" should be looked at in the proper context, because the reality is, the stagnation that has occurred in 3-point shooting during the playoffs has mostly been team-wide. If I recall correctly, Manu Ginobili in a blog post even went so far as to say one of the primary reasons for their loss to the Grizzlies was the inability of everyone in the team, save for RJ (RJ!), to consistently rely on the weapon that had made them so deadly all regular season long.

As for getting abused by post players, I think perception is key, and I think Matt Bonner is getting victimized somewhat by subtle forms of discrimination as a result of his physical appearance. I'm not saying Bonner is a great or even good post defender, but I think given the physical tools available to him, he's made the most of what he's had to at least be passable on that front. But the fact is, it's fairly easy to think otherwise because he doesn't fit the profile of a conventional big man; that is, he's white and has red hair. I mean, let's be honest here: if Matt Bonner looked like Shaq, he wouldn't be accused of getting "abused" on the post nearly to the same extent. But because he looks soft and unintimidating in every conceivable way, then he becomes an easier target for criticism in that area.

As an aside, if you don't buy the notion that first impressions or physical appearance plays that big of a role in life, then may I recommend Blink by Malcolm Gladwell?


That's honestly a big part of the reason why I'm so proud to be a Spurs fan. Anyone can put together a team of talented knuckleheads to fill the roster, but the fact that the Spurs can create a culture that breeds grounded, professional people with positive off-the-court attributes and still be among the winningest franchises in professional sports speaks volumes about the laudability of the Spurs' model.

Speaking of Mensa scores, Matt Bonner has an SAT score of 1350 which when converted to IQ measures out at 139 at a standard deviation of 15. The minimum for admission into Mensa given that standard deviation is 130. That means he's more than smart enough to join a high IQ society that mandates one's IQ be higher than 98% of the world population. 98%.

IQ don't mean squat if you lack natural ability. Bonner should stayed in the academic field tbh.

[TJastal]

SenorSpur, I posted this in the Matt Bonner thread in the Think Tank forum, but since you didn't respond, and since this post more or less applies to the topic of this thread anyway, I'm just going to go right ahead and post it here too.



During the playoffs, 48 Minutes of Hell wrote an excellent post (http://www.48minutesofhell.com/is-matt-bonner-earning-his-minutes) entitled, "Is Matt Bonner earning his minutes?" Here's an excerpt from it:
As I have tried to argue, much of the criticism that has been levied at Matt Bonner has been excessive and, to a certain extent, unwarranted. The fact that Timothy Varner, the author of the article, would concede that he guessed Bonner was scored on more often in the post, only to have the stats repudiate that, lends credence to the notion that the criticism aimed at Bonner is grounded not so much in reality but perception.

One particularly cogent argument that Bonner apologists have used all season long is his surprisingly and consistently high plus-minus rating. Of course, you did remark that what happens in the regular season is irrelevant to the discussion because, "When playoff time rolls around, when the lights get bright and the playoff pressure turns up, Matt Bonner is nowhere to be found." But a closer look at his plus-minus rating for the playoffs (http://basketballvalue.com/teamunits.php?year=2011%20playoffs&sortnumber=17&sortorder=DESC&team=SAS) actually says otherwise.

Of the 11 units that yielded a net positive plus-minus rating, Matt Bonner appeared in 7 of them, including the top 6. Granted, Bonner detractors will point to the fact that Bonner also appears in 7 out of the 12 units that yielded a negative rating. But, as Varner astutely pointed out in his blog post, "It doesn’t establish the illegitimacy of Bonner’s minutes, it only establishes that Coach Popovich must carefully deploy Matt Bonner. Matt Bonner, then, is a kind of high risk/high reward player. Used with the right combination of players, he’s a help. Used wrongly, he hurts the team."

And this is exactly the point I've been trying to make all along. Matt Bonner hasn't succeeded in the postseason because he hasn't been put in a good position to do so. The fact that, when deployed with the right combination of players, he has been able to yield a positive plus-minus rating, and is featured in the 6 most effective units the team has used against the Grizzlies strongly suggests that, when used correctly, Bonner is more of an asset than a liability.

It's worth noting that the latter observation still holds true in spite of the fact that Bonner shot only 33% from 3 in the playoffs this season. That means that, contrary to popular belief, he can still help put the team in a position to win even when he's not knocking down 3 pointers. At first, this may seem counterintuitive, but it's easy to forget that being a 3-point specializing big man comes with other sets of advantages.

Matt Bonner spreads the floor, which, as I'm sure you're well aware, has the advantage of keeping the defense honest and luring big men away from the rim, making the penetrating of Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili a lot more potent, as well as adding another dimension to the offense in the form of a big man's perimeter shot making. The fact that they haven't fallen nearly to the same extent in the playoffs doesn't take away from the reality that the mere potential for it to be used does go a long way to helping the Spurs offense, which has been the 2nd most efficient in the regular season in the NBA, keep chugging along. The fact that Bonner apologists have used this argument ad nauseam to the point of it being satirized here in SpursTalk should not take away from its significance.

Now, with all that said, if Matt Bonner continues to be used ineffectively, does that make him a legitimate major role player in a team with championship aspirations? Probably not. But the fact that, when paired with the right players, he becomes a major asset to the team should, in and of itself, warrant his getting minutes in the playoffs.

You called Pop and idiot for succumbing to the very definition of idiocy, and I'm fairly certain you alluded to Einstein here when he defined insanity as, "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." But I think it's actually the other way around. Pop would be insane to give Matt Bonner consistent regular season minutes when he led the league in 3-point percentage only to suddenly take that away in the playoffs when he finds himself unable to produce at the same rate. Because that, my friend, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If he's been reliable all season long for us, would it make sense to suddenly pull the plug on him when he's become part of the chemistry that has been developed as well as a major contributor to the team with the best regular season record in the conference, especially when one considers the intangibles he offers?

I said this at the top of this excessively long post, and I'll say it again. Much of the criticism that has been levied at Matt Bonner is excessive, and to a certain extent, unjustified. Previously, I tried to argue that this could be a result of subtle forms of discrimination against his physical appearance. Though you did respond by stating that reasonable people like yourself ground this criticism on his production, or lack thereof, I have tried to show that this is in fact, not the case. Because when one looks at the evidence, one can unequivocally see that Matt Bonner has helped this team more than he has hurt it overall, and that his being lambasted is not grounded so much in reality as it is in perception.

Your mind is warped. Senor_spur was obviously referring to Bonner's post season results and Pop expecting Bonner to actually make a difference for the team, which he has clearly not in 4 years.

Which somehow you've twisted into a flawed, warped analogy which probably constitutes a brand new logical fallacy nobody has ever even seen. :lol

[SenorSpur]

Your mind is warped. Senor_spur was obviously referring to Bonner's post season results and Pop expecting Bonner to actually make a difference for the team, which he has clearly not in 4 years.

Which somehow you've twisted into a flawed, warped analogy which probably constitutes a brand new logical fallacy nobody has ever even seen. :lol

Correct and thanks TJastal

RJ has been so maligned for his poor play by fans and Spurs coaches - and deservedly so. He was originally miscast into a role with this team, that has been nearly impossible for him to fulfill. He's in an offense that doesn't take advantage of his strengths and the defensive expectations of him have been totally unrealistic. While the trade for RJ looked good at the time, and I applaud the Spurs for trying, it has been a colossal failure.

At the same time, Bonner has had 4 years of increased playing time and coaches trust - on the heels of the Robert Horry's departure. Yet he continuously proven to be a regular season wonder and a playoff choker. Yet he continues to get a free pass by Pop and his band of Popsucker disciples that inhabit this forum.

To continue rolling this guy out there as a key rotation player is truly the definition of insanity. The debacle that occurred in the Memphis series in only the last example of how the Spurs frontline has declined, and how Pop has failed provide inject the frontline with the type of help that Duncan has needed during his waning years.

There is much more wrong with this roster than just the poor production from their starting SF. If Pop and R.C. truly want to rid this roster of non-performing players, they shouldn't just stop by trying to ship out RJ.

[TJastal]

Correct and thanks TJastal

RJ has been so maligned for his poor play by fans and Spurs coaches - and deservedly so. He was originally miscast into a role with this team, that has been nearly impossible for him to fulfill. He's in an offense that doesn't take advantage of his strengths and the defensive expectations of him have been totally unrealistic. While the trade for RJ looked good at the time, and I applaud the Spurs for trying, it has been a colossal failure.

At the same time, Bonner has had 4 years of increased playing time and coaches trust - on the heels of the Robert Horry's departure. Yet he continuously proven to be a regular season wonder and a playoff choker. Yet he continues to get a free pass by Pop and his band of Popsucker disciples that inhabit this forum.

To continue rolling this guy out there as a key rotation player is truly the definition of insanity. The debacle that occurred in the Memphis series in only the last example of how the Spurs frontline has declined, and how Pop has failed provide inject the frontline with the type of help that Duncan has needed during his waning years.

There is much more wrong with this roster than just the poor production from their starting SF. If Pop and R.C. truly want to rid this roster of non-performing players, they shouldn't just stop by trying to ship out RJ.

It's all about perception, Senorspur. Don't discriminate. Just "look" hard enough and you will eventually see Robert Horry out there. Instead of the undersized, uncoordinated doofus who regularily gets outrebounded by small forwards and thrown around like a rag doll against power forwards & centers. And then can't make a contested, pressure shot to save his life.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, you did nothing to address Uriel's actual argument, which is to be expected. Some of you actually agreed with him while thinking you weren't, which is hilarious.

You might want to go back and read it again without so much hysteria.

[TJastal]

Well, you did nothing to address Uriel's actual argument, which is to be expected. Some of you actually agreed with him while thinking you weren't, which is hilarious.

You might want to go back and read it again without so much hysteria.

Are you by chance referring to this little nugget of twisted logic:


You called Pop and idiot for succumbing to the very definition of idiocy, and I'm fairly certain you alluded to Einstein here when he defined insanity as, "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." But I think it's actually the other way around. Pop would be insane to give Matt Bonner consistent regular season minutes when he led the league in 3-point percentage only to suddenly take that away in the playoffs when he finds himself unable to produce at the same rate. Because that, my friend, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If he's been reliable all season long for us, would it make sense to suddenly pull the plug on him when he's become part of the chemistry that has been developed as well as a major contributor to the team with the best regular season record in the conference, especially when one considers the intangibles he offers?.

[ChumpDumper]

Are you by chance referring to this little nugget of twisted logic:I'm referring to your complete lack of understanding.

It's ok, no one expects it from you.

[TJastal]

I'm referring to your complete lack of understanding.

It's ok, no one expects it from you.

No, you said you found it hilarious someone agreed with something uriel posted without knowing it.

Tell us what you were referring to.

[ChumpDumper]

No, you said you found it hilarious someone agreed with something uriel posted without knowing it.

Tell us what you were referring to.You still haven't figured it out?

:lol

:tu

[PM5K]

It's unfortunate because you can't fix what you don't accept. We'll have to wait until Timmy retires before we see any real changes.

[TJastal]

You still haven't figured it out?

:lol

:tu

Like usual, you run and hide when cornered. Then act like you've won the argument, with gloating and snide remarks.

[ChumpDumper]

Like usual, you run and hide when cornered. Then act like you've won the argument, with gloating and snide remarks.I didn't win anything, and I'm still here. I can see why you're upset; your failure to grasp his point should be a source of shame and embarrassment for you.

Have you tried actually reading what he posted?

[TJastal]

I didn't win anything, and I'm still here. I can see why you're upset; your failure to grasp his point should be a source of shame and embarrassment for you.

Have you tried actually reading what he posted?

More gloating & snide remarks, what a big surprise.

[ChumpDumper]

More gloating & snide remarks, what a big surprise.What can I say? It's fun watching you get angry because you can't understand a very plainly stated argument.

Did you try to read it again or have you given up and decided to just whine about how mean I am?

[TJastal]

What can I say? It's fun watching you get angry because you can't understand a very plainly stated argument.

Did you try to read it again or have you given up and decided to just whine about how mean I am?

Uriel's "argument" spans almost 3 posts and over 20 paragraphs of mind numbing blather.

Look, I get that you don't want to clarify your point and would just rather sit and make snide comments. It's what you do.

[ChumpDumper]

Uriel's "argument" spans almost 3 posts and over 20 paragraphs of mind numbing blather.Words are difficult for you. It's ok.

I do believe your mind is numb, though.


Look, I get that you don't want to clarify your point and would just rather sit and make snide comments. It's what you do.Eh, even if you completely fail to understand it, I'm sure someone else can.

[TJastal]

Words are difficult for you. It's ok.

I do believe your mind is numb, though.

Eh, even if you completely fail to understand it, I'm sure someone else can.

And we have more snide remarks when asked to simply clarify a point. You're on a roll today, Chump. I see your name on a future 1st team ALL ST ballot for sure.

[ChumpDumper]

And we have more snide remarks when asked to simply clarify a point. You're on a roll today, Chump. I see your name on a future 1st team ALL ST ballot for sure.That was as predictable as your failure to understand Uriel's point. This emotional tirade of yours is entertaining, I'll grant that.

Uriel's point is perfectly clear and can be summed up in a few sentences lifted verbatim from his posts. One only need be intelligent enough to grasp it.

[TJastal]

That was as predictable as your failure to understand Uriel's point. This emotional tirade of yours is entertaining, I'll grant that.

Uriel's point is perfectly clear and can be summed up in a few sentences lifted verbatim from his posts. One only need be intelligent enough to grasp it.

Oh, well for sure you'll tell us what these "few sentences" are right? Or will there be more grandstanding and insults?

My money is on the latter.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, well for sure you'll tell us what these "few sentences" are right?I won't tell you because you're an asshole.

I trust the others can figure it out for themselves. It's not difficult.

lol grandstanding

[silverblk mystix]

That was as predictable as your failure to understand Uriel's point. This emotional tirade of yours is entertaining, I'll grant that.

Uriel's point is perfectly clear and can be summed up in a few sentences lifted verbatim from his posts. One only need be intelligent enough to grasp it.

Uriel sees that Bonner produces in the regular season so Pop is right in continuing to use him in the post-season.

The people who have watched Bonner choke every year in the playoffs after teasing spurs fans in the reg season believe the pattern has repeated often enough for Pop to have noticed the choking.

Why do you think Uriel is right,chump?

[ChumpDumper]

Uriel sees that Bonner produces in the regular season so Pop is right in continuing to use him in the post-season.

The people who have watched Bonner choke every year in the playoffs after teasing spurs fans in the reg season believe the pattern has repeated often enough for Pop to have noticed the choking.

Why do you think Uriel is right,chump?You're making assumptions of things that have not actually been said.

Try again.

[silverblk mystix]

You're making assumptions of things that have not actually been said.

Try again.

Well, we don't have to play games...you can say what you are referring to or else you have a different agenda...

enjoy yourself.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, we don't have to play games...you can say what you are referring to or else you have a different agenda...

enjoy yourself.Sure, one could say my agenda is seeing how stupid people can make themselves look on a message board.

To that end, I am indeed enjoying myself.

[silverblk mystix]

Sure, one could say my agenda is trolling and baiting people without ever saying what my position is. Ever.

To that end, I am indeed enjoying myself.



Congrats.

[ChumpDumper]

Congrats.

:toast

[TJastal]

Sure, one could say my agenda is seeing how stupid people can make themselves look on a message board.

To that end, I am indeed enjoying myself.

lol the only one looking stupid is you, bro

[ChumpDumper]

lol the only one looking stupid is you, broIf that makes you feel better about your complete failure to understand a simple thesis on a message board, have at it.





Bro.

[TJastal]

If that makes you feel better about your complete failure to understand a simple thesis on a message board, have at it.





Bro.

How can anyone be a complete failure at understanding something nobody even knows what you're referring to?

[ChumpDumper]

How can anyone be a complete failure at understanding something nobody even knows what you're referring to?Man, words are hard for you.

[ChumpDumper]

Bro.

[TJastal]

Bro.

:lol

Now your all butthurt over the word "Bro"? Or is this your attempt to redirect the subject now that you've been cornered?

[ChumpDumper]

:lol

Now your all butthurt over the word "Bro"? Or is this your attempt to redirect the subject now that you've been cornered?lol cornered

No, bro, I said Uriel's point is quite plainly stated. We've reached an impasse because you can't find it and I'm not going to hold your hand.

I definitely have the power to break this impasse, but it has become quite clear you don't. I think that's pretty cool, bro. I'll just keep gloating.

[silverblk mystix]

60,000 posts...

59,975 posts consisted of;

"tell us how many widgets exactly"

" be specific"


59,975 times...lurking until someone misquotes something....someone states an opinion...someone tries to make a point....

then he sees his chance and tries to poke holes....


Trolling at its finest.

[ChumpDumper]

:crySorry you didn't get it either.

It's cool that you both tried once before deciding to just pout and whine about how mean I am.

[silverblk mystix]

Sorry you didn't get it either.

It's cool that I can always lurk and just stir the pot without ever saying anything --or ever take a stand. I troll therefore I am.

[ChumpDumper]

He's just so mean to me.

[Chief Brody]

The TJ-Dumper feud is an entertaining sideshow on ST lately

[jimo2305]

lmao @ thread derailment factor

[TJastal]

lol cornered

No, bro, I said Uriel's point is quite plainly stated. We've reached an impasse because you can't find it and I'm not going to hold your hand.

I definitely have the power to break this impasse, but it has become quite clear you don't. I think that's pretty cool, bro. I'll just keep gloating.

Okay, you have fun rejoicing in your own conceptual "victory", bro.

[ChumpDumper]

Okay, you have fun rejoicing in your own conceptual "victory", bro.I don't consider it a victory, bro.

I do consider your whining to be very funny.

[TJastal]

lmao @ thread derailment factor

Well if Chumpdumper would just clarify himself already, this thread wouldn't be an extra 3 pages long.

:lol

[ChumpDumper]

Well if Chumpdumper would have just clarified himself when asked, this thread wouldn't be an extra 3 pages long.

:lolWell, all you had to do was read Uriel's posts again, bro.

:lol

[TJastal]

Well, all you had to do was read Uriel's posts again, bro.

:lol

I did read all 20+ paragraphs of various popsucking and bonnerloving and I gotta tell ya, when I got through I needed to go get a nice stiff drink. Still have no clue which point you are babbling about, and I think its hilarious that whatever little nugget of bs your clinging to, you think its obvious to everyone but me. Haven't seen anyone else chime in with the goods, have you? Why don't you just break the suspense and tell us all before this goes to 10 pages. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

I did read all 20+ paragraphs of various popsucking and bonnerloving and I gotta tell ya, when I got through I needed to go get a nice stiff drink. Still have no clue which point you are babbling about, and I think its hilarious that whatever little nugget of bs your clinging to, you think its obvious to everyone but me. Haven't seen anyone else chime in with the goods, have you? Why don't you just break the suspense and tell us all before this goes to 10 pages. :lolI believe you when you say you still don't have a clue, bro.

[silverblk mystix]

I did read all 20+ paragraphs of various popsucking and bonnerloving and I gotta tell ya, when I got through I needed to go get a nice stiff drink. Still have no clue which point you are babbling about, and I think its hilarious that whatever little nugget of bs your clinging to, you think its obvious to everyone but me. Haven't seen anyone else chime in with the goods, have you? Why don't you just break the suspense and tell us all before this goes to 10 pages. :lol

You are wasting your time...

Cumdumpster gets his kicks from trolling...

[TJastal]

I believe you when you say you still don't have a clue, bro.

:lol

Keep up the suspense, bro. And the childish snide remarks. You can help make this 10 pages and pad your post count in the process! :lol

[ChumpDumper]

You are wasting your time...

Cumdumpster gets his kicks from trolling...So why do you spend time reading and responding to my posts?

[yavozerb]

Chump and TJ take this thread to 5 pages: fact or fiction?

[jjktkk]

Chump and TJ take this thread to 5 pages: fact or fiction?

Have to give tjastal credit. Even though hes the "Ian Mahimni" of ST, he still tries anyway to be relavent.

[TJastal]

Have to give tjastal credit. Even though hes the "Ian Mahimni" of ST, he still tries anyway to be relavent.

Relevant you mean?

Anyhow, I do appreciate the compliment. Clowning Chumpdumper has become something of a little hobby of mine.

:lol

[ohmwrecker]

Chump is winning here because he took TJ out of his M.O. which is to call anyone who disagrees with him a "Popsucker" or a "Bonnerlover" whether it is appropriate or not.
Chump's M.O. is to pretend he understands the issue on a deeper level than the person he is arguing with and to ridicule his opponent because they don't "get it" when there is nothing to get. Chump is still in his M.O.

Therefore, Chumper wins.

Next!

[200 miles]

The TJ-Dumper feud is an entertaining sideshow on ST lately

No kidding. Those two should just stop bickering and get a room already.

[ChumpDumper]

Chump is winning here because he took TJ out of his M.O. which is to call anyone who disagrees with him a "Popsucker" or a "Bonnerlover" whether it is appropriate or not.
Chump's M.O. is to pretend he understands the issue on a deeper level than the person he is arguing with and to ridicule his opponent because they don't "get it" when there is nothing to get. Chump is still in his M.O.

Therefore, Chumper wins.

Next!Eh, there's nothing to win; and there's plenty to get. Anyone who isn't stupid or blinded by hate could figure out what the thesis is.

[ohmwrecker]

Eh, there's nothing to win; and there's plenty to get. Anyone who isn't stupid or blinded by hate could figure out what the thesis is.

See.

[ChumpDumper]

See.But it's not a deeper understanding -- merely a basic understanding of what was explicitly stated in the posts.

[ohmwrecker]

But it's not a deeper understanding -- merely a basic understanding of what was explicitly stated in the posts.

I know.

[TJastal]

Uh sure, Chump. I'll pretend I know. I got your back, bro.


fify

[ChumpDumper]

fifyI wouldn't count him as my staunchest ally, bro.

I do give him credit for being literate, though.

[TJastal]

I wouldn't count him as my staunchest ally, bro.

I do give him credit for being literate, though.

lol @ backtracking
lol @ no "staunch" allies backing you up
lol @ this argument

[ChumpDumper]

lol @ backtracking
lol @ no "staunch" allies backing you up
lol @ this argumentWhat backtracking?

We're still talking about your inability to understand he rather simple thesis that was explicitly stated in Uriel's posts.

Do you not understand that either?

Wow, bro.

[ohmwrecker]

fify

I wasn't really siding with Chump there, buddy. You are kind of making his case for him though.

[ChumpDumper]

I wasn't really siding with Chump there, buddy. You are kind of making his case for him though.He seems a little paranoid tbh.

[DMC]

The Spurs ran into injuries to star players during a critical time in the season. Had Dirk gone down a week before the playoffs, the Mavs would be facing the same thing. The Bulls had a great regular season, were they fool's gold?

It's always been about matchups, and the Spurs do not match up well with Memphis, a team who had one fewer win since January than the Spurs. Then again, they were destroyed by the Lakers and the Heat in a couple of games.

There's no such as a 61 game fool's gold. If there were, teams like the Clippers would do it every year. They aren't interested in winning a ring, but they would love to be in the playoffs. Teams like the Knicks who have sold the farm for a chance at a ring would at least get a 61 win season to justify their move. Hell, any other team in the league would win as many as they could in the regular season. There's no "Win 61 Games But Lose in the Playoffs" scheme. It's naive to think otherwise.

[TJastal]

What backtracking?

We're still talking about your inability to understand he rather simple thesis that was explicitly stated in Uriel's posts.

Do you not understand that either?

Wow, bro.

The absence of any of your "staunch allies" is backtracking by default. And so here we still sit, waiting for you to reveal the mystery that is kept hidden with lock and key.

congrats on ohmwrecker's newfound literacy, btw

Waiting on you, bro.

[ChumpDumper]

The absence of any of your "staunch allies" is backtracking by default.Huh? You said he was one. Are you backtracking on that, bro? I don't even I could really call any poster one, but I don't dwell on such things.


And so here we still sit, waiting for you to reveal the mystery that is kept hidden with lock and key.It's there, bro. Do you know what "explicitly spelled out" means?


congrats on ohmwrecker's newfound literacy, btwHe always seemed that way to me, bro -- even when we disagree.


Waiting on you, bro.For what, bro?

[ohmwrecker]

congrats on ohmwrecker's newfound literacy, btw

How are my past posts illiterate?

Please explain in detail.

[TJastal]

Huh? You said he thought he was one. Are you backtracking on that, bro? I don't even I could really call any poster one, but I don't dwell on such things.

It's there, bro. Do you know what "explicitly spelled out" means?

He always seemed that way to me, bro -- even when we disagree.

For what, bro?

I said what? LMAO You claimed yourself he wasn't one of your "staunch" allies inferring only they would understand your POV. Again, I see nobody attempting to the crack the hidden code you claim is so obvious. Now you seem to be getting a little testy here, bro. Maybe we should just call it even and drop the subject, huh? (pssst.. Here's your chance to escape!)

[TJastal]

How are my past posts illiterate?

Please explain in detail.

Now look what you gone and did, Chump. Poor Ohm's all confused. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

I said what? LMAO You claimed yourself he wasn't one of your "staunch" allies inferring only they would understand your POV.I did no such thing, bro -- I said anyone who isn't an stupid or blinded by hate could understand such a plainly stated thesis. And you misused the word inferring. Words really are hard for you.
Again, I see nobody attempting to the crack the hidden code you claim is so obvious.That's just it, bro -- it isn't hidden.
Now you seem to be getting a little testy here, bro. Maybe we should just call it even and drop the subject, huh? (pssst.. Here's your chance to escape!)If you want to quit and run away, no one is stopping you, bro.

[ohmwrecker]

Now look what you gone and did, Chump. Poor Ohm's all confused. :lol

I'm not the one who gets flustered in arguments, misspells words and uses poor grammar, tbh.

[TJastal]

I did no such thing, bro -- I said anyone who isn't an stupid or blinded by hate could understand such a plainly stated thesis. And you misused the word inferring. Words really are hard for you.That's just it, bro -- it isn't hidden.If you want to quit and run away, no one is stopping you, bro.

Okay, fine, I misinterprented your "he's not my staunchest ally" comment.
Still, where all all these non-stupid and not blinded people (who are obviously smarter than the "literate" ohmwrecker) you claim should understand such a plainly stated thesis?

Going for 6 pages with the cat & mouse I see..

[DMC]

I see the OP is in the past now. Does every thread turn into the same cliques getting into bickering contests? Reminds me of kids in the back seat annoying each other and getting corrected by the parents after one of them complains about being touched.

[TJastal]

I'm not the one who gets flustered in arguments, misspells words and uses poor grammar, tbh.

Poor Ohmwrecker now has an inferiority complex because of what you said bro...

How many more people do you think you can you insult in this thread?

[ChumpDumper]

Okay, fine, I misinterprented your "he's not my staunchest ally" comment.-- and mistook implication for inference -- don't forget that, bro.

To say nothing of the misquoting.

Still, where all all these non-stupid and not blinded people (who are obviously smarter than the "literate" ohmwrecker) you claim should understand such a plainly stated thesis?Why are they suddenly required to claim whether they spotted the thesis, bro? They could just as easily be laughing at your failure to grasp it as I am and just as loathe to hold your hand to point it out to you.

[ChumpDumper]

I see the OP is in the past now. Does every thread turn into the same cliques getting into bickering contests? Reminds me of kids in the back seat annoying each other and getting corrected by the parents after one of them complains about being touched.As far as the OP is concerned, I never put much literal stock in what is publicly said by players or coaches. The Spurs failed this season and will make changes.

[TJastal]

-- and mistook implication for inference -- don't forget that, bro.

To say nothing of the misquoting.
Why are they suddenly required to claim whether they spotted the thesis, bro? They could just as easily be laughing at your failure to grasp it as I am and just as loathe to hold your hand to point it out to you.

Uh, bro.

Damn near 6 pages and not one has surfaced. Must be a lot of laughing and holding back typing out responses. But you take care in the knowledge that all your staunch allies..errr...non-stupid non-blind people.. are all sitting there partaking in the laughter if it makes you feel better.

[ohmwrecker]

Poor Ohmwrecker now has an inferiority complex because of what you said bro...

How many more people do you think you can you insult in this thread?

You need to take a step back and reload, because you seem to have no idea what is going on here.

[ChumpDumper]

Uh, bro.

6 pages and not one has surfaced. Must be a lot of laughing and holding back typing out responses. But you take care in the knowledge that all your staunch allies..errr...non-stupid non-blind people.. are all sitting there partaking in the laughter if it makes you feel better.I doubt many people read his posts in their entirety, bro.

ohmwrecker seemed to imply that he got it, but I may be inferring incorrectly, bro.

I don't expect too many others to come forward at this point and cast their lot with you and proclaim themselves also not able to understand a plainly explicit thesis. Seems it would make them look rather stupid, don't you think, bro?

[ChumpDumper]

You need to take a step back and reload, because you seem to have no idea what is going on here.How did you infer that, bro?

[TJastal]

You need to take a step back and reload, because you seem to have no idea what is going on here.

Ohm, Chump has made it clear that since you have no idea what he's talking about your not part of the non-stupid, non-blind crowd. I'm sure he didn't mean it for real, since he's just trolling and bullshitting his way through this thread, obviously.

oh wait, he did say


Sure, one could say my agenda is seeing how stupid people can make themselves look on a message board.

To that end, I am indeed enjoying myself.

Looks like he not only meant it, but enjoyed it too. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Ohm, Chump has made it clear that since you have no idea what he's talking about your not part of the non-stupid, non-blind crowd. I'm sure he didn't mean it for real, since he's just trolling and bullshitting his way through this thread, obviously.

oh wait, he did say

Looks like he not only meant it, but enjoyed it too. :lolThe implication here is you may have made a faulty inference, bro.

[Chief Brody]

Ohm, Chump has made it clear that since you have no idea what he's talking about your not part of the non-stupid, non-blind crowd. I'm sure he didn't mean it for real, since he's just trolling and bullshitting his way through this thread, obviously.

oh wait, he did say



Looks like he not only meant it, but enjoyed it too. :lol

You just admitted to being stupid. This is not going well for you.

[TJastal]

I doubt many people read his posts in their entirety, bro.

ohmwrecker seemed to imply that he got it, but I may be inferring incorrectly, bro.

I don't expect too many others to come forward at this point and cast their lot with you and proclaim themselves also not able to understand a plainly explicit thesis. Seems it would make them look rather stupid, don't you think, bro?

More backtracking. Now you claim nobody reads his sermons? Is this why nobody is speaking up? And poor ohmwrecker, haven't you insulted him enough today already? :lol

And as far as others who don't get it not posting, I don't see how they're relevant to your position, after all you're the 2nd team ALL ST poster who should have people jumping into the thread to help you out. Unless your now going to claim all these imaginary people are all just sitting back laughing which I find rather preposterous.

Just keep diggin' that grave deeper, bro. By the time this reaches 10 pages, it will become an epic hallmark of your stupidity.

[TJastal]

You just admitted to being stupid. This is not going well for you.

I admitted no such thing.

[ChumpDumper]

More backtracking. Now you claim nobody reads his sermons? Is this why nobody is speaking up? And poor ohmwrecker, haven't you insulted him enough today already? :lolIt's not backtracking, bro. You don't even know what that word means. in order to backtrack, I would have had to first have said that everybody read his lengthy posts in their entirety. I did not do that, bro.


And as far as others who don't get it not posting, I don't see how they're relevant to your position, after all you're the 2nd team ALL ST poster who should have people jumping into the thread to help you out. Unless your now going to claim all these imaginary people are all just sitting back laughing which I find rather preposterous.Why would they not be laughing at you, bro? You've unintentionally given them plenty to laugh about.


Just keep diggin' that grave deeper, bro. By the time this reaches 10 pages, it will become an epic hallmark of your stupidity.Nah, you could have taken this time to find out where you went wrong. Instead, you keep doubling down. It's not working, bro.

[ohmwrecker]

Ohm, Chump has made it clear that since you have no idea what he's talking about your not part of the non-stupid, non-blind crowd. I'm sure he didn't mean it for real, since he's just trolling and bullshitting his way through this thread, obviously.

I don't think you are interpreting what Chumper said correctly . . . but, in all honesty, I have no idea what he is talking about because I did not read Uriel's post. I am just fucking with you.

I don't really care what you guys are arguing about, I am just entertaining myself. This thread holds no new information outside of the OP. The rest of it is just rehashed and reformed opinions and ludicrous arguments.

You know . . . Spurstalk.

[ChumpDumper]

I did not read Uriel's post. I am just fucking with you.
I doubt many people read his posts in their entirety, bro.There you go.

My initial inference was incorrect, but I was right with this guess.

[TJastal]

It's not backtracking, bro. You don't even know what that word means. in order to backtrack, I would have had to first have said that everybody read his lengthy posts in their entirety. I did not do that, bro.

Why would they not be laughing at you, bro? You've unintentionally given them plenty to laugh about.

Nah, you could have taken this time to find out where you went wrong. Instead, you keep doubling down. It's not working, bro.

Ahh ya, keep the bluff going, it's all you got. Your about to draw a 10 and bust. And for someone who defends themselves with inferences and implications, you sure demand specifics when the shoe is on the other foot,bro.

And I told you I read through all of uriels' mini-novel 20+ paragraphs of rambling nonsense. I even quoted you a paragraph asking you if this was the one that was apparently so plainly obvious to everyone else. Yet you choose not to be the bigger man and answer. Why not? You could have made me look foolish 6 pages ago, and not wasted everybody's time and attention. Yet here you are dragging this shit on and on, keeping this bluff going apparently to feed your own ego/vanity.

[TJastal]

I don't think you are interpreting what Chumper said correctly . . . but, in all honesty, I have no idea what he is talking about because I did not read Uriel's post. I am just fucking with you.

I don't really care what you guys are arguing about, I am just entertaining myself. This thread holds no new information outside of the OP. The rest of it is just rehashed and reformed opinions and ludicrous arguments.

You know . . . Spurstalk.

I'd call this backtracking but apparently I don't know what the word means.

:lol

[ChumpDumper]

Ahh ya, keep the bluff going, it's all you got. Your about to draw a 10 and bust. And for someone who defends themselves with inferences and implications, you sure demand specifics when the shoe is on the other foot,bro.

And I told you I read through all of uriels' mini-novel 20+ paragraphs of rambling nonsense. I even quoted you a paragraph asking you if this was the one that was apparently so plainly obvious to everyone else. Yet you choose not to be the bigger man and answer. Why not? You could have made me look foolish 6 pages ago, and not wasted everybody's time and attention. Yet here you are dragging this shit on and on, keeping this bluff going apparently to feed your own ego/vanity.I told you you were wrong, bro.

Quit begging for more. Be a man and figure shit out for yourself.

[ohmwrecker]

I'd call this backtracking but apparently I don't know what the word means.

:lol

Apparently not. Since I never took a position in the argument how could I possibly be backtracking?

[ChumpDumper]

I'd call this backtracking but apparently I don't know what the word means.

:lolIf you were going to use it in this situation, you definitely don't know what it means, bro.

[ChumpDumper]

Do you at least know the difference between inferring and implying yet, bro?

That would be a win for both of us tbh.

[TJastal]

Apparently not. Since I never took a position in the argument how could I possibly be backtracking?

Dude. Bro. You're just making yourself look even dumber with your denials. You're actually claiming that your post below wasn't "taking a position" in the argument? Realtalk, bro?


Chump is winning here because he took TJ out of his M.O. which is to call anyone who disagrees with him a "Popsucker" or a "Bonnerlover" whether it is appropriate or not.
Chump's M.O. is to pretend he understands the issue on a deeper level than the person he is arguing with and to ridicule his opponent because they don't "get it" when there is nothing to get. Chump is still in his M.O.

Therefore, Chumper wins.

Next!

[ChumpDumper]

Dude. Bro. You're just making yourself look even dumber with your denials. You're actually claiming that your post below wasn't "taking a position" in the argument? Realtalk, bro?You realize he never said anything about Uriel's posts, don't you, bro?

[TJastal]

You realize he never said anything about Uriel's posts, don't you, bro?

Then how could he "infer" you won the argument, bro?

[ChumpDumper]

Then how could he "infer" you won the argument, bro?Because he made what appears to be a joke about what he believes to be the tactics each of us use.

You really need to have this explained to you, bro? You just reposted it.

[TJastal]

Because he made a joke about what he believes to be the tactics each of us use.

You really need to have this explained to you, bro? You just reposted it.

Oh, right he was just joking. The most popular backtracking defense. Carry on.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, right he was just joking. The most popular backtracking defense. Carry on.I edited to say it appears to be a joke since I don't decisively know his intention, though I don't know why you would take it so deadly seriously, bro.

[ChumpDumper]

And yeah, you have no idea what backtracking means, bro.

[TJastal]

I edited to say it appears to be a joke since I don't decisively know his intention, though I don't know why you would take it so deadly seriously, bro.

Then why didn't you write it that way the first time?

[ChumpDumper]

Then why didn't you write it that way the first time?I chose to be more accurate in my post. Is that a problem for you, bro?

[ohmwrecker]

Then how could he "infer" you won the argument, bro?

That assessment was solely based on who abandoned their "schtick" first.

It's all right there, bro.

[ChumpDumper]

That assessment was solely based on who abandoned their "schtick" first.

It's all right there, bro.I tried to tell him.

Did you consider what you posted to be a joke?

[TJastal]

And yeah, you have no idea what backtracking means, bro.

So you're now telling me you've never heard of the "I was just joking, dude!" defense...

:rolleyes

Keep digging, bro.

[ChumpDumper]

So you're now telling me you've never heard of the "I was just joking, dude!" defense...Sure. I hear you say it all the time.

[ohmwrecker]

I tried to tell him.

Did you consider what you posted to be a joke?

It was intended to be humorous, yes.

[TJastal]

Oh, by the way, if ohmwrecker wasn't referring to any of uriel's posts, what did this quote on page 5 mean, bro?


But it's not a deeper understanding -- merely a basic understanding of what was explicitly stated in the posts.

[ChumpDumper]

It was intended to be humorous, yes.I figured as much, but wanted to be sure. I really can't imagine anyone taking it so seriously as to try to use it in an actual argument, but I've seen some really stupid things posted on this board.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, by the way, if ohmwrecker wasn't referring to any of uriel's posts, what did this quote on page 5 mean, bro?I would guess that he played me as well, bro. I don't take it as personally as you seem to be right now, but I certainly can believe that he wrote all of that without reading Uriel's posts.

Do you not find that plausible, bro?

[Nick Manning]

Goddamn, this thread is taking on a life of it's own

[TJastal]

I would guess that he played me as well, bro. I don't take it as personally as you seem to be right now, but I certainly can believe that he wrote all of that without reading Uriel's posts.

Do you not find that plausible, bro?

Uh, no, bro. He hadn't yet said anything about understanding or even reading uriel's posts. How could you infer any of that? And play you in this way? Unless you were just joking. Is that what you were doing, playing a joke on all of us, bro?

[ChumpDumper]

Uh, no, bro. He hadn't yet said anything about understanding or even reading uriel's posts.Exactly, bro. That's my point.
How could you infer any of that?I said my inference was faulty. Did you not understand that bro?
And play you in this way? Unless you were just joking. Is that what you were doing, playing a joke on all of us, bro?It's quite clear what I said, bro. I think your record for not understanding plainly composed posts speaks for itself at this point.

[Nick Manning]

How did the Chump-TJ fight start? I doubt it was this thread tbh

[ChumpDumper]

How did the Chump-TJ fight start? I doubt it was this thread tbhI don't know tbh. I'm sure he was just joking. Off to do some work -- back in an hour or so.

[TJastal]

"Your inference was faulty" is your excuse for being exposed as an outright liar? Not cool, bro.

And I find it hilarious that now your holding me accountable to understanding all these "faulty inferences" and "jokes" that you've littered throughout the thread, as if I'm supposed to be keeping perfect track of all your bullshit and lies. All I can say is good luck with your next argument, bro.

Peace out.

[jimo2305]

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/8494/popcorn.gif

[ChumpDumper]

"Your inference was faulty" is your excuse for being exposed as an outright liar? Not cool, bro.Huh?

What are you ranting about now, bro?


And I find it hilarious that now your holding me accountable to understanding all these "faulty inferences" and "jokes" that you've littered throughout the thread, as if I'm supposed to be keeping perfect track of all your bullshit and lies. All I can say is good luck with your next argument, bro.

Peace out.I don't expect you do be able to do much of anything, bro. You proved that in this thread. All I can say is good luck trying to understand English, bro.

[Sean Cagney]

Sadly, I think Pop is being sincere....hope he ultimately ends up right and rights the ship...

With this same team intact no way in hell you can right the SHIP! They MIGHT pass round one or maybe two this year, but thats IT if fully healthy! Grizz were a huge matchup for the Spurs, if the Spurs win game one this is a completely different series and Spurs win in 7 IMO.

[Uriel]

Well, you did nothing to address Uriel's actual argument, which is to be expected. Some of you actually agreed with him while thinking you weren't, which is hilarious.

You might want to go back and read it again without so much hysteria.
TJastal, I believe ChumpDumper was referring to this tidbit, copied and pasted directly from my initial thesis.


One particularly cogent argument that Bonner apologists have used all season long is his surprisingly and consistently high plus-minus rating. Of course, you did remark that what happens in the regular season is irrelevant to the discussion because, "When playoff time rolls around, when the lights get bright and the playoff pressure turns up, Matt Bonner is nowhere to be found." But a closer look at his plus-minus rating for the PLAYOFFS (http://basketballvalue.com/teamunits.php?year=2011%20playoffs&sortnumber=17&sortorder=DESC&team=SAS) actually says otherwise.

Of the 11 units that yielded a net positive plus-minus rating, Matt Bonner appeared in 7 of them, including the top 6. Granted, Bonner detractors will point to the fact that Bonner also appears in 7 out of the 12 units that yielded a negative rating. But, as Varner astutely pointed out in his blog post, "It doesn’t establish the illegitimacy of Bonner’s minutes, it only establishes that Coach Popovich must carefully deploy Matt Bonner. Matt Bonner, then, is a kind of high risk/high reward player. Used with the right combination of players, he’s a help. Used wrongly, he hurts the team."

And this is exactly the point I've been trying to make all along. Matt Bonner hasn't succeeded in the postseason because he hasn't been put in a good position to do so. The fact that, when deployed with the right combination of players, he has been able to yield a positive plus-minus rating, and is featured in the 6 most effective units the team has used against the Grizzlies strongly suggests that, when used correctly, Bonner is more of an asset than a liability.

To which you responded in the following manner:

Your mind is warped. Senor_spur was obviously referring to Bonner's post season results and Pop expecting Bonner to actually make a difference for the team, which he has clearly not in 4 years.

Which somehow you've twisted into a flawed, warped analogy which probably constitutes a brand new logical fallacy nobody has ever even seen. :lol
Clearly, you did not respond to the argument. In fact, the manner by which you responded strongly implies that you were unable to comprehend the point being made in the first place. If you still don't understand, let me spell it out for you: the evidence I used in my defense of Mat Bonner cited statistics from the playoffs, to which you responded that Matt Bonner was a regular season wonder, yet a colossal playoff failure. Do you see it yet? I just presented evidence to repudiate your argument, to which you responded by assuming the veracity of your initial premise, committing, incidentally, yet another logical fallacy: begging the question.

The fact that you would rant for 5 plus pages about arbitrary, irrelevant points in what essentially amounted to a red herring (clearly you did not take up my advice to read up on your logical fallacies) conveys your gross inability to discuss in a rational, cohesive manner, forcing you instead to resort to name-calling and personal attacks.


IQ don't mean squat if you lack natural ability. Bonner should stayed in the academic field tbh.

Of course it's easy for you to say that. You clearly don't have it in abundance. Quite frankly, I find your inability to comprehend even the most elementary, plainly stated tenets of the English language to be both painfully baffling as well as dishearteningly amusing. Oh, and your grammar is egregious.

As for the point about some of you actually agreeing with me while pretending to disagree:

Uriel sees that Bonner produces in the regular season so Pop is right in continuing to use him in the post-season.

The people who have watched Bonner choke every year in the playoffs after teasing spurs fans in the reg season believe the pattern has repeated often enough for Pop to have noticed the choking.

Why do you think Uriel is right,chump?
Actually, I stated that Matt Bonner, when used correctly, could be a major asset for the team. Since he was not always placed in a position to do so, then he yielded negative results as well as positive. The latter point is especially cogent when you consider that you yourself acceded to this point in the post I cited above. Hence, you implicitly agreed with me, even though you explicitly stated otherwise.

Correct and thanks TJastal

RJ has been so maligned for his poor play by fans and Spurs coaches - and deservedly so. He was originally miscast into a role with this team, that has been nearly impossible for him to fulfill. He's in an offense that doesn't take advantage of his strengths and the defensive expectations of him have been totally unrealistic. While the trade for RJ looked good at the time, and I applaud the Spurs for trying, it has been a colossal failure.

At the same time, Bonner has had 4 years of increased playing time and coaches trust - on the heels of the Robert Horry's departure. Yet he continuously proven to be a regular season wonder and a playoff choker. Yet he continues to get a free pass by Pop and his band of Popsucker disciples that inhabit this forum.

To continue rolling this guy out there as a key rotation player is truly the definition of insanity. The debacle that occurred in the Memphis series in only the last example of how the Spurs frontline has declined, and how Pop has failed provide inject the frontline with the type of help that Duncan has needed during his waning years.

There is much more wrong with this roster than just the poor production from their starting SF. If Pop and R.C. truly want to rid this roster of non-performing players, they shouldn't just stop by trying to ship out RJ.
I'm sorry SenorSpur, but there's really no need to resort to name-calling here. What I tried to provide was a reasonable, logical argument with evidence and statistics to try and elaborate on my initial points. At the very least, I deserve a proper rebuttal using similar means, not the ad hominem TJastal resorts to when he enters into his pseudo-intellectual mode.

[ChumpDumper]

implies

veracity

premise

cohesive

abundance

tenets

dishearteningly

cogent

implicitly

explicitly

elaborate

rebuttal

ad hominem

pseudo-intellectualHe's not going to understand these words, bro.

[TE]

This thread delivers. :tu

[TE]

He's not going to understand these words, bro.

:lol

[GSH]

OMG - I just scanned this thread, and it makes me queasy. The Prophet Yavozerb predicted it would go 5 pages, and I didn't believe him. Turns out even he underestimated.

I'm trying to decide: go back and read every post in the thread, in detail - or watch a few hours of public access TV, and bang my head against a brick wall. I hear there's a Japanese game show where people have to grope around to try and find jewelry hidden in their own poop. I might give that a look.

Is it the heat getting to everybody?

[GSH]

Do that, non-stop for an hour. Your posts might get better

Damn. I hate it when I'm outmaneuvered by a word-ninja.


Seriously - even Tjastal has one ball. Nobody chooses Goebbels for a screen name unless they are totally overcompensating.

[GSH]

LOL... somewhere in hermaphrodite land, the mental wheels are spinning. He thinks, "I need a really good comeback to this one. If I post another weak suck response like that last one, everyone will really know I'm nutless. Maybe one of those funny pictures with FAIL written on them. Yeah... that's it. A really good FAIL pic."

G'night Gobbles. You're too pitiful to even spar with.

[blizz]

I kept seeing teasers on woai about don Harris asking a question that made pop walk out but I never saw it. Does anyone know what that was?

[ElNono]

TJastal, I believe ChumpDumper was referring to this tidbit, copied and pasted directly from my initial thesis.

To which you responded in the following manner:

Clearly, you did not respond to the argument. In fact, the manner by which you responded strongly implies that you were unable to comprehend the point being made in the first place. If you still don't understand, let me spell it out for you: the evidence I used in my defense of Mat Bonner cited statistics from the playoffs, to which you responded that Matt Bonner was a regular season wonder, yet a colossal playoff failure. Do you see it yet? I just presented evidence to repudiate your argument, to which you responded by assuming the veracity of your initial premise, committing, incidentally, yet another logical fallacy: begging the question.

The fact that you would rant for 5 plus pages about arbitrary, irrelevant points in what essentially amounted to a red herring (clearly you did not take up my advice to read up on your logical fallacies) conveys your gross inability to discuss in a rational, cohesive manner, forcing you instead to resort to name-calling and personal attacks.

Of course it's easy for you to say that. You clearly don't have it in abundance. Quite frankly, I find your inability to comprehend even the most elementary, plainly stated tenets of the English language to be both painfully baffling as well as dishearteningly amusing. Oh, and your grammar is egregious.

As for the point about some of you actually agreeing with me while pretending to disagree:

Actually, I stated that Matt Bonner, when used correctly, could be a major asset for the team. Since he was not always placed in a position to do so, then he yielded negative results as well as positive. The latter point is especially cogent when you consider that you yourself acceded to this point in the post I cited above. Hence, you implicitly agreed with me, even though you explicitly stated otherwise.

I'm sorry SenorSpur, but there's really no need to resort to name-calling here. What I tried to provide was a reasonable, logical argument with evidence and statistics to try and elaborate on my initial points. At the very least, I deserve a proper rebuttal using similar means, not the ad hominem TJastal resorts to when he enters into his pseudo-intellectual mode.

What you proved is the notion that +/- is a horrible stat to gauge individual performance. Something that's been repeated ad-nauseum around these places, but apologists (not necessarily you) will cling on that for lack of any other decent evidence.

It's just silly to reach for such stats when just looking at his numbers (and the games) tell you the whole story: He received 3+ more minutes than last season, and shot even worse from downtown (33%). A guy that was ranked in the top 3 of 3pt percentage in the regular season dropped to #39 overall for the playoffs. 'Usage' has little to do with it. 'Matchups' is not either. He just becomes a below average player once you take out his one trick.

What I get from the +/- is that he has a terrible time playing with Hill. Which should come at no surprise.

All that said, I won't put this series on him. He's definitely part of the problem, and because Pop can't help himself, I'd like the team to move him.
Ultimately, if you want to argue that Pop is not 'using him right', then after 3 seasons, what makes you think that Pop will suddenly figure out what 'right' is?

[ElNono]

BTW, Richard Jefferson appears on 6 of the positive +/- lineups... Hill on 8(!)

:vomit:

[ElNono]

I think it would be dangerously shortsighted to think that this wasn't a horribly flawed team. If Manu's healthy, I think they get through Round 1, but even at full strength, that team wasn't going to seriously threaten a title.

This is basically it. With TD seriously declining, and Dice about to retire, you can't back them up with Matt and Blair and expect to get anywhere. And I'm not going to say anything about RJ that hasn't been said before.

[silverblk mystix]

TJastal, I believe ChumpDumper was referring to this tidbit, copied and pasted directly from my initial thesis.

To which you responded in the following manner:

Clearly, you did not respond to the argument. In fact, the manner by which you responded strongly implies that you were unable to comprehend the point being made in the first place. If you still don't understand, let me spell it out for you: the evidence I used in my defense of Mat Bonner cited statistics from the playoffs, to which you responded that Matt Bonner was a regular season wonder, yet a colossal playoff failure. Do you see it yet? I just presented evidence to repudiate your argument, to which you responded by assuming the veracity of your initial premise, committing, incidentally, yet another logical fallacy: begging the question.

The fact that you would rant for 5 plus pages about arbitrary, irrelevant points in what essentially amounted to a red herring (clearly you did not take up my advice to read up on your logical fallacies) conveys your gross inability to discuss in a rational, cohesive manner, forcing you instead to resort to name-calling and personal attacks.

Of course it's easy for you to say that. You clearly don't have it in abundance. Quite frankly, I find your inability to comprehend even the most elementary, plainly stated tenets of the English language to be both painfully baffling as well as dishearteningly amusing. Oh, and your grammar is egregious.

As for the point about some of you actually agreeing with me while pretending to disagree:

Actually, I stated that Matt Bonner, when used correctly, could be a major asset for the team. Since he was not always placed in a position to do so, then he yielded negative results as well as positive. The latter point is especially cogent when you consider that you yourself acceded to this point in the post I cited above. Hence, you implicitly agreed with me, even though you explicitly stated otherwise.

I'm sorry SenorSpur, but there's really no need to resort to name-calling here. What I tried to provide was a reasonable, logical argument with evidence and statistics to try and elaborate on my initial points. At the very least, I deserve a proper rebuttal using similar means, not the ad hominem TJastal resorts to when he enters into his pseudo-intellectual mode.

Please...

#1)Disagreeing with you is impossible because you will only dream up of a new statistic or scenario to apologize for Pop and for Bonner.

Agreeing with you is the same because of #1 above and because it won't change how badly the Pop/Bonner combo suck.

#2) Spin it any way you want...if Pop continues to use Bonner at all it will only hurt the team. You can show Bonners stats until you are blue in the face and it still would not show how the team is weaker the longer that Bonner plays. If you watch a game and pay attention you won't waste your time searching for statistics to defend Pop or Bonner-if you are honest.

Pop can not possibly find a way to use Bonner correctly...the only CORRECT way to use Bonner is to slap the red out of his head and ship his ass to another team who is stupid enough to take him. THAT would be correct.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

silverblk mystix is a faggot

[TJastal]

TJastal, I believe ChumpDumper was referring to this tidbit, copied and pasted directly from my initial thesis.

To which you responded in the following manner:

Clearly, you did not respond to the argument. In fact, the manner by which you responded strongly implies that you were unable to comprehend the point being made in the first place. If you still don't understand, let me spell it out for you: the evidence I used in my defense of Mat Bonner cited statistics from the playoffs, to which you responded that Matt Bonner was a regular season wonder, yet a colossal playoff failure. Do you see it yet? I just presented evidence to repudiate your argument, to which you responded by assuming the veracity of your initial premise, committing, incidentally, yet another logical fallacy: begging the question.

All you've shown with that list of top-5 units that you consider some kind of holy grail of basketball statistics is that the team does well in those stretches of limited minutes when Matt Bonner hits 3's. Hello, Capt Obvious. As El Nono posted, he is also on the bottom of the list several times as well. Wouldn't it be wonderful in a perfect world where other teams would let step aside and let Matty shoot uncontested 3's and he made everything? This manipulation of the stats that your all warm and fuzzy about is a complete waste of time, bro. If you look at the overall (+/-) for the playoffs (which IMO at least tells you something even remotely useful IMO):

http://www.nba.com/statistics/plusminus/plusminus_sort.jsp?pcomb=1&season=42010&split=9&team=Spurs

Look whose at the top.. Manu by himself @ +19. Followed by Blair @ +12, Danny Green +3, Steve Novak +2, McDyess -6, Splitter -9. Of these players, only Manu & McDyess logged > 100 minutes. So essentially that's saying these two players were the top relevant playoff contributors for the spurs. Rounding out the pack are Matt Bonner @ -12, Duncan @ -18, Parker @ -19, Jefferson @ -21, Neal @ -22, & Hill -24. Statistically speaking, Hill had the most miserable time of any spur in this series. But his name also appears in 6 of the top 7 five-man very limited minutes units in your list. Does this tell us Hill is just not being used correctly as well? Nah. All this says to me is like Bonner, Hill is an energy player who thrives on rhythym and when he's hitting 3's the team is doing well. Remember that guy, Capt Obvious? He says hello again.


The fact that you would rant for 5 plus pages about arbitrary, irrelevant points in what essentially amounted to a red herring (clearly you did not take up my advice to read up on your logical fallacies) conveys your gross inability to discuss in a rational, cohesive manner, forcing you instead to resort to name-calling and personal attacks.

Of course it's easy for you to say that. You clearly don't have it in abundance. Quite frankly, I find your inability to comprehend even the most elementary, plainly stated tenets of the English language to be both painfully baffling as well as dishearteningly amusing. Oh, and your grammar is egregious.

Well you're right about one thing, I was arguing about an irrelevant point for 5+ pages. You're flawed assumption (derived from that misleading graph that misses the big picture) that Bonner can be an effective playoff performer if only used in the correct lineups is baloney. You deserved to be called out on it. And as far as my use of the English language, I'm quite satisfied with it. The fact that is deriving you pain is a source of amusement for me.


As for the point about some of you actually agreeing with me while pretending to disagree:

Actually, I stated that Matt Bonner, when used correctly, could be a major asset for the team. Since he was not always placed in a position to do so, then he yielded negative results as well as positive. The latter point is especially cogent when you consider that you yourself acceded to this point in the post I cited above. Hence, you implicitly agreed with me, even though you explicitly stated otherwise.

I'm sorry SenorSpur, but there's really no need to resort to name-calling here. What I tried to provide was a reasonable, logical argument with evidence and statistics to try and elaborate on my initial points. At the very least, I deserve a proper rebuttal using similar means, not the ad hominem TJastal resorts to when he enters into his pseudo-intellectual mode.

You'll have to ask Senorspur what his opinion is, but there is no "pretending" to disagree from this ad-hominem slinging shoot from the hip spurstalker. The conclusions drawn from your misleading data suggest nothing of the sort that Bonner can be in any, way, shape or form a reliable playoff performer in any capacity. Better head to the next popper meeting and maybe you and Chumpdumper can discuss new pie charts or bar graphs over some raspberry cookies and tea. In the meantime, have a nice life.

[TJastal]

the only CORRECT way to use Bonner is to slap the red out of his head and ship his ass to another team who is stupid enough to take him. THAT would be correct.

:lmao :rollin :lol

[ChumpDumper]

lol misleading

[Stalin]

That's a whole lot of nothing, tbh.

[silverblk mystix]

silverblk mystix is a faggot. How do I know? His Cock tastes like shit.

:lol