Reply With Quote
rosen thinks the lakers right now are not a championship team. they have overachieved.
Exactly.
Rosen is spot on - the Spurs are slightly behind where they should be, primarily due to the injuries and the new players learning the system.
He's also spot-on about the Lakers - very good team, but flaky at the end of games because Kobe will never trust his teammates the way he should. I wonder if he knows something about who they are shopping that he can't divulge?
rosen thinks the lakers right now are not a championship team. they have overachieved.
#2 in the West, #5 in the NBA with Manu and Parker missing like a month of the season each.
I would say their record is B+, but their play is C-. Their defense is horrible. They are settling for too many 3s, instead of attacking the basket and getting to the line more consistently. They don't block many shots and they are still not as effective on the glass as they need be.
Spurs B and rising
Lakers A - right where they should be right now
Only teams in West that matter as they will meet again to decide WC.
Geez it would be nice if people would actually read Rosen's article so they understand how the grading system works.
Considering most analysts, as well as Spurs fans, were hoping for the Spurs to remain at or just above .500 until Manu came back - and the fact that Parker missed a good portion of the season, i think they should get a B- at least.Geez it would be nice if people would actually read Rosen's article so they understand how the grading system works.
They're 28-13 remember. Given the cir stances, i would give them a B.
rosen did not put injuries into consideration because almost all have dealt with injuries at one point or another in the season.
... and giving them a B (based on the grading system) meant they have overachieved which is something i wouldn't like.
that's kind of bull though, because there have only been a few teams with comparable injuries to us..Utah, maybe Denver, maybe Cleveland..
Check out our past and upcoming schedule, maybe you should reconsider your statement.
Then Ruff is right, maybe i should read his article.
Still, which other team was missing their second and third best players for half the season.
spurs are basically right where they are supposed to be especially if you look at their history. and that is fine by me.
call him lazy then.
Your right, this is about their mark each season - except they havent had their number 2 and 3 guys miss this much time before at this stage of the season.
Hollinger then this ass clown. Stern apparently gives them a stipend for spurs haterization
Id say Utah is the only team who has suffered more than the Spurs injury-wise. It does make his article kind of bull and the analysis irrelevant if your going to judge without taking injuries into account.
Fair enough if the injured players are out for the entire year, then that will be the makeup of the team come playoff time. Players being out for a month or so is different. The Spurs expect to have them back and healthy.
knock... knock
who's there?
the rockets!
I really don't care if he gives the Spurs an A+++. Charlie Rosen is a hack.
My bad, i forgot the Rockets. They're injured so much i forgot they had 2 former All-Stars on the roster.knock... knock
who's there?
the rockets!
The problem with this rating system is that if you give a team an "A", which is normally thought of as a good grade, it means they've played out of their heads for the first half and you expect them to backslide. It's kind of a back-handed slap. A C- means we should actually be a little better in the second half of the season.
It's a stupid ratings system because you either say a team has sucked when it shouldn't or has done well when it shouldn't. Or, you know, you give them a C. There is no positive grade here.
In that stead, how do the Nuggets not get an A? Who would have picked them to be bucking for 2nd place in arguably the deepest 1-9 conference in NBA history?
I give them an A-. To be first in their division and second in the Western Conference after missing Manu and Tony for big chunks of the season? That's pretty damn good if you ask me.
Remember those threads in which we were supposed to tank because we supposedly weren't going to make the playoffs and then the others in which a lot of people agreed that it'd be nice if we were around the .500 mark by the ASG, so that we can push on in the second half of the season?
Considering the cir stances we have overachieved big time and props to the team for that.
If you read the article you'd know he wasn't hating on us.
Rosen has been critical of the Spurs in the past, but he's also been very complimentary at times. He calls it as he sees it. As for Hollinger, he's a stat geek who gets too caught up in his formulae, but I don't think he hates the Spurs either.
Morons like Mark Kiszla in Denver are the true Spur-haters.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions