:bangQuote:
Originally Posted by gambit1990
Printable View
:bangQuote:
Originally Posted by gambit1990
spurs with parker are 28-10, .737
spurs without parker are 11-2, .846
hey OP, spurs record is still much better in games parker doesn't play.
Interesting considering Parker is the winningest player in NBA history. By your logic, Spurs should attribute their winning more to him than to Duncan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gambit1990
It used to be the Spurs would be much better replacing Parker with Skatty but, not even a homer would agree with that now. I see you're changing your shticks on the fly.Quote:
Originally Posted by gambit1990
what the fuck are you talking about? :lol i'll still take patty over parker, nothing's changed. especially not how stupid you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoops Czar
spurs with parker: 34-11, .756
spurs without parker: 12-2, .857
The 27yr old X-Men fan finally showed up lmfao. Finally ditched the skirt
You're shittin me right gambit. With Parker playing, not Mills shiting the bed, this would have been a comfortable win for the Spurs.
This might be the best backfire thread of the season.Quote:
Originally Posted by gambit1990
Spurs need to be almost perfect with Tony playing to beat the no-tp spurs.
Lets hope they are and go for the 1st seed.
Point guards with a combined 3-13 shooting performance. MVParker heal up soon
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGreatYacht
Quote:
Originally Posted by gambit1990
what? we played the pacers a couple weeks ago... tony played... and it was a close game until the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by picnroll
Loved Murray's second-half stint, but the gap between him and Parker is huge.
spurs now 7-0 when murray starts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinook
Yup. Don't think this game comes down to the wire if TP playsQuote:
Originally Posted by Chinook
tbh fwiw, Spurs needed Tony tonite!
They lost the first half with Murray starting and had to put in Patty in after the break to stop the bleeding.Quote:
Originally Posted by gambit1990
You mean there's a huge gap between their respective girth, right? Let's not fall into recency bias. The Pork recently had a two-game stretch where he had two points total. Murray's 5 game stretch earlier in the season was amazing. Even if Porker is the better option, he's too washed up and Murray isn't bad enough for there to be a big gap between the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinook
OK subtract out Mills 2 points on 1/7 and add in Parkers 12 points on 4/8 and what do you have? A nice 11 point win. But keep on plugging away with your Parker schtick.Quote:
Originally Posted by gambit1990
"Let's not fall into recency bias"Quote:
Originally Posted by FkLA
Only bumps this thread when Parker looks bad or Murray looks good.
I see you viewing the thread, Silver&Black. Just wanted to let you know that you are missed in game threads, brah. No homo.
edit: I thought this was the game thread but i stand by the statement
And Murray didn't even look that good tonight tbh. The whole 7-0 when he starts thing is silly, but I know it fits what's being driven by this threadQuote:
Originally Posted by Chinook
that hypothetical won't get you anywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by picnroll
read the thread title then read this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gambit1990