Reply With Quote
Crucify 'em, 2b. Get a holt of 'em by the nap of the neck and drag 'em, tree of woe.
Don't blame me that you don't understand the game on the same level bro.
Anyone can be a stat chimp.
Crucify 'em, 2b. Get a holt of 'em by the nap of the neck and drag 'em, tree of woe.
I think the OP hit a nerve
Damn straight I did. The thick headed will always think they can fight back but the truth is that reality is a mother er and it only makes you look more and more stupid if you continue to fight it.
All I'm doing right now is planting seeds. These aren't even the trees yet that I intend to tend to throughout the season. It'll be fun.
the only seed planted is your front running post-Gasol Lakerfanhood.
Without your precious lakers you wouldn't step foot in this forum or any other one. You bring absolutely nothing to the table, which is why you pussied out upstairs after you got pwned and came down here.
Luckily you have cully or you'd have been gone as quick as tbone.
Do you understand how the rules work around here moron?
Without your precious lakers you wouldn't step foot in this forum or any other one. You bring absolutely nothing to the table, which is why you pussied out upstairs after you got pwned and came down here.
Luckily you have cully or you'd have been gone as quick as tbone.
I posted for 1 week on the Spurs forum and was banned immediately. Too much vaginas got hurt.
This is why an idiot such as yourself talks trash senselessly and erroneously using words like "pwned" because that's all you can do. I think it's hilarious watch you get angry.
Both, at least for the Spurs they do. Those assistants in the back just ain't watching. They're looking at the numbers as well as gameflow. On the court success is essentially winning. We both agree on that.
Bowen was the best defender based on both effort and physicality. His continual placements were due to his hard nosed play, his willingness to fight on everything. His long arms were a pain to deal with and his reputation as someone who made the league's premier scorers cry with disdain. All of that showed up as lowered effectiveness ratings for those scorers.
LAL has The LOB, I Get that. I'm looking at how the LAL is starting the season and I note that they aren't healthy to start. I think that that puts them in a bad spot and ultimately, they get defeated. So no 3peat.
Nope...they're hypotheses. So technically, they're opinons. The fact will bear out this season at the end.Nope, those were the facts, not opinions.
You've guessed wrong. But what exactly are Superstar standards to you? To me and host of APBR people, it's stats where a player is .650 or better. So, if you're using your standard of observation, what bears it out? When it gets down to it...It'll be stats. Bean wouldn't amount to anything if his statistical box score was like Vujacic. It's his impact statistically that carries his worth. So again, observation without measurement MEANS NOTHING.By NBA superstar standards, DUH. Observation is the only evidence you need and the 2010 playoffs were evidence enough of Tim Duncan's decline as a dominant player. If Tim is not dominant, the Spurs aren't contenders. A fanboy like yourself naturally will point to per minute statistics of "facts" while the reality of what took place on the floor. I'm going to guess you're the typical moron who understands basketball through the aid of a stat sheet.
The stat is an official stat by the NBA. I only used one stat because truthfully, all that that you ask for, is readily available for you on 82games.com I'll give you link if you ask for one.How did you manage to measure the intangibles of the game with your efficiency breakdown? Heart, hustle, clutch, defense? A rebound collected in the 1st quarter is the same as a clutch board made on a crucial defensive stance in the 4th quarter? Same with shots made, steals, blocks, assists, etc etc. How are these important distinctions separated in your "efficiency statistics?"
The stat needed here is called boxscore defense. That's observation with statistics in which each play where a primary subject batles against another. Every output observed, measured, and then quanitified. To simplify it, one could tell if the opposition's defense was good using the aforementioned effectiveness rating. Say Bean goes for .675 on average, but when he goes against the Spurs, then you look at Bean's game per minute. If his rating was .575, then you have evidence that what the Spurs did had in effect, lowered his output. I could say it was the way they bodied him up, they clutched and hip-checked him whenever they got the chance and slapped down on his hands while he was shooting but there isn't a way to quantify those particular acts, only their results as in fouls, which may or may not result in points for Bean, missed shots, or steals.And defense? How are proper defensive elements measured? When a player successfully cuts off a driving player or alters a shot just enough to cause a miss, how is this taken into account? What about defensive rotations that are made or failed to be made fast enough? How do we determine if players are playing the game "the right way?" How do we weigh making the most important plays of the game versus just run of the mill plays? It can't be done. It won't be done. The game is too complex and their are way too many intangibles to ever put the game in its entirety into mathematical context.
You said this not me.Stats are a useful, limited guide..
My brain uses both observation and statistics. I don't feel limited in any way. Maybe you disregard them because they don't always validate what you see? I see them for what they are...effective measurement that needs to be re-tested and measured again for success.
Pure folly on your part. A) Manu didn't have hang nail and B) he wasn't on the pine for weeks at a time for the season. See...your opinion isn't factual evidence. The guy played 75 games last season and didn't miss "weeks" of play throughout the season. Try again.Bean's oft injured knee hasn't caused him to miss big chunks of the season and Bean plays through the pain well enough to win championships. Manu's hang nail re-appears and he's back on the pine for weeks while Spurs fans resurrect the slew of excuses for why they'd really win if Manu had played.
How would you know that if you didn't use statistics? But again, his numbers are as solid as ever, it's because he plays less, he doesn't ac ulate as much. The same thing happened to one Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Solid player till the end, still effective but played less minutes.Tim had been that guy for years but he no longer protects the paint with the same authority. Not only have his blocks gone down but so have his altered shots.
Do you understand what the word pwned means? Getting banned for being an idiot is called "being pwned", idiot.
And I'm quite glad you're set on staying and "planting those seeds". It'll be nice digging em up later.
Do you understand what the word pwned means? Getting banned for being an idiot is called "being pwned", idiot.
And I'm quite glad you're set on staying and "planting those seeds". It'll be nice digging em up later.
So did I give up on the Spurs forum or did I get banned? I need you to clarify just how stupid you are...
Did you get destroyed and banned, or not? I need you to clarify what being pwned means.
They're not opinions if they are true. And last season proved everything to be true. Sorry, they're facts with or without your consent.
I'll tell you this it's not what APBR people say statistically, lol. Statistics can support what you observe but they they do not take the place of observation. When the coaches vote for the all-defensive team what is their unit of measure? Are you telling me it is advanced stats? lol. Idiot.
Your little catch phrase of observation without measurement means nothing until you define every facet of the game as a tangible unit of measure. Since you can't your entire premise is based on a fallacy.
Don't need it, I'm familiar with the site, an irrelevant one and one that idiotic stat worship fanboys regularly inhabit. Do you think Bill Russell or John Wooden goes there to check efficiency stats?
That's not accurate. "Every output observed, measured and then quantified" is 100% FALSE. Measured and then quantified, sure, but not observed.
But following this statistic crap for insight is unreliable because it actively ignores realities that cannot be measured. Bean's rating can be good or bad with or without good defense. For example, he can be hip checked and commendably defended by a player and still be successful scoring wise which would translate to bad defense and that would be inaccurate. Obviously it works the other way around too.
Still does not take into account whether players are rotating effectively, whether individual players are correctly reading the offense or putting forth the appropriate effort.
The Dallas Mavericks idiotically tried to employ advanced stats over actual coaching back in 2007 when they played the Warriors. That mistake burned Avery and that was unfortunate because he was a good coach.
Bull . I know stat boys and you're a stat boy. I know the type as I've had them working for me in the past. I sit on the bench actively observing everything, managing the team based on what I see which is entirely based on what I know and how I want things to play out and guys like you sit there making little marks on a clipboard.
Observing a players decision making, understanding their psychology and specifically why they elected to do what they did at any given moment is a greater insight than any stupid little collection of numbers you put together at the end of the day. This is how the game is effective taught to individuals.
I didn't say he was on the pine for weeks this past season. I said he was a glass ankle snap away from being on the pine again. It appears that you don't read too well.
But it's nice to see you've backed off the Luke Walton comment... how stupid was that?
Solid player till the end is not the same as being a superstar. Moreover there is no comparison whatsoever between Kareem and Duncan. None. Kareem was on a level Duncan dreams about. Kareem helped win a le at age 38, 40 and 41. He was the Finals MVP dominating a great Celtics team at age 38!
Tim's only 34 and he's getting abused by the lowly Phoenix Suns, lol. Channing FREAKING Frye? Are you kidding me? Goran Dragic?
I mean, did you watch your team in the playoffs this year or do you just look at the stat reports after the fact?? Don't answer, as I already know which one it was.
Well I don't have the time to read all the facts, and revolve stats around 24/7 proving anything you say doesn't mean because spurs, and lakers will still make it to the playoffs, and lakers have won there share of champions, and lakers are the team to beat this year but aren't the most talented now. That's all to it everything is in the past and we can't tell what will happen in the future, who cares do something better besides try to piss off spurs fans every fan can be delusional jeez. I thought cully's 75 posts per day stat was bad
Toby man...you make me laugh.
How can something be measured, and quantified without Observation? It's the very basis of scientific theory.
When a player makes a bad decision upon observation, that gets noted. It gets acted upon immediately true, but that mistake is a statistic all it's own.
As for Phoenix last season? Have the LAL ever lost a series due to a bad matchup?
Yeah they have. When the Spurs closed the Forum down would qualify. Magic's last appearance in the Finals and I'll add Houston beating LAL with Sampson & Olajuwon.
Statistically, Dragic, Frye, & Dudley played above their statistical output. Since they didn't duplicate their efforts against LAL, then the series tilted LA. Technically, it tilted all the way when Artest made that follow-up basket for the W.
We can talk without stats. I don't have a problem with them. You do, so if you want to just talk basketball terms, I can do that too. What else you got?
That's because you omitted the word "Every." "Every observation" is not measured and quantified. Certain things are but not "every" one. That is what was inaccurate. And no, the statistic isn't necessarily recorded with every mistake. A player can botch an assignment defensively but still get bailed out by the botched play of the offensive player for example. Pure fallacy.Toby man...you make me laugh.
How can something be measured, and quantified without Observation? It's the very basis of scientific theory.
When a player makes a bad decision upon observation, that gets noted. It gets acted upon immediately true, but that mistake is a statistic all it's own.
As for Phoenix last season? Have the LAL ever lost a series due to a bad matchup?
Yeah they have. When the Spurs closed the Forum down would qualify. Magic's last appearance in the Finals and I'll add Houston beating LAL with Sampson & Olajuwon.
Statistically, Dragic, Frye, & Dudley played above their statistical output. Since they didn't duplicate their efforts against LAL, then the series tilted LA. Technically, it tilted all the way when Artest made that follow-up basket for the W.
We can talk without stats. I don't have a problem with them. You do, so if you want to just talk basketball terms, I can do that too. What else you got?
And now Phoenix was a bad match up, lol? The team you guys beat year after year? Lol. Wow. Amazing. Any time you lose couldn't it be rationalized to be a "bad match up?"
OKC was a bad match up for LA and they won. They certainly didn't get swept. Do you understand the significance of a sweep? It wasn't close. It wasn't a "could go either way" type situation, it was a lop sided domination by a team that was superior to what ended up being a "pretender" team just like they will be this year.
In the future talk to me like you're talking to Gregg Popovich or Dean Smith (or the like). Before you go stat geek chimp, just think, "would Pop give a about this?"
bwahahahaahahahaha
sig worthy
Smith is far away now. He has Alzheimer's.
"They see me trollin', they hatin'..."
You and I both know that teams rarely stay fully constant with personnel year-after-year. Even the LAL made changes despite the 2-peat. Kicking PHX in the gonads all those years forced them to make a myriad of adjustments including their coach. In short, they had to bring in an ex-Spur Assistant Coach in Alvin Gentry, to get past the Spurs. I will say that the Spurs made far too many errors like missed easy tip-ins and uncertainty and indecision made a series that on observation, looked like San Antonio was playing well, but in results, was a 4-0 Series vicro. The mistakes that Pop wants minimized were not and that forced the Spurs to try to play perfect ball the rest of the way. When they couldn't, that compounded the mistakes...it made the sweep much easier.
Same core team, certainly not much better than they were in 2005, 06 or 07 thoroughly dismantled an aged, tired, defensively inferior Spurs team led by an declined Tim Duncan who had little to no impact on the series.
It was a sign of the times.
Since you don't know many of the posters here, I'll tell you about me. I have been watching the NBA since about 1960 and always cheer on whatever western team plays in the finals. So, I am a bandwagon fan X 10000.
21 rings, got: Lakers 11, Spurs 4, Rockets 2, Bucks, Warriors, Blazers, Sonics 1 each.
I get branded as Lakers fan and do have a soft spot for them for all their suffering in the 1960's. But I like the Spurs, Mavs, Rockets, Suns, etc. as well.
I think you're a little off base here calling the Spurs done. Yes, they are getting older but they do have a core with championship experience.
One of the reasons the Suns beat the Spurs was the revenge factor. If you didn't notice, the 2010 playoffs had many examples, and you can't ignore revenge as motif. Sometimes teams can do it, sometimes they can't. Here's the other revenge wins last season:
Celtics over Magic for 2009
Spurs over Mavs for 2009
Lakers over Suns for 2006 and 2007
Lakers over Celtics for 2008.
Looking back at 2010, the Spurs seemed done most of the season. Then later on, they gelled. They won at home against both Cleveland and Orlando, and crushed the Lakers and Celtics in their house. A lot of Spurs fans were calling for the 8th seed figuring they had to go through the Lakers at some point, get them early while they were struggling.
When the playoffs started in April, few people expected a Lakers vs. Celtics finals. Many thought neither would make it. Had San Antonio gotten to the finals, I believe they would have beaten Boston.
You can't call a team with championship experience done, you just can't. Want to know the most impressive thing about the Russell Era Celtics? It wasn't their first 8 les, they were expected to win those. It was their last 3, from 1966 to 1969. They weren't the favorite in those. They lost to Wilt's Sixers in 1967, but beat them twice w/o HCA in 1966 and 1968. They won all 3 playoff series in 1969 w/o HCA as well. Maybe you noticed the comparison between the 1969 and 2010 Celtics?
Even as the Showtime Lakers aged, they were contending. If Worthy doesn't go down in the 1991 finals, or Magic have to retire that fall, maybe they beat the Bulls. At least they would have had a shot.
You may call the Spurs non-contenders when #21 retires. San Antonio, like Boston, has gone "All in".
It took a whole different coach for PHX, which in turn resulted in a change in defensive mindset. PHX changed out a lot from those years you listed outside of Stoudamire and Nash, the rest of what one would term core went elsewhere. Let's list it as the following:
Nash, Stoudamire, Barbosa, Raja Bell, & Boris Diaw with Mike D'Antoni as Coach.
Nash, Stoudamire, Barbosa were there for 2010. Jason Richardson played very well and Frye, offensively, was lights out from the 3 point line, for that series alone.
You and I differ on the impact Duncan has defensively. I'll agree that he's slipped some but not to the degree you have him at. With a physical 7 footer next to him, I expect that both blocks and Opp FG% for the Spurs will go in the right direction.
Curiously, out of 6 Pro Scouts that SI is using for their NBA issue. They have the Spurs finishing Top 4 in the conference. Going further, 2 out of the 6 have them meeting the LAL in the WCF's and 1 of the 6 has the Spurs winning out. I agree more with that than your 6th place prediction.
I think this is the general feeling of most Spurfans. Although it is agreed the Spurs will make the playoffs (which could be considered a bit of a gamble in itself), by and large, we agree our outlook is most likely a semifinals, or even first round loss.
Yet should the right pieces fall into place . . there's a chance. Not a big one, but if they can gel and stay healthy at the right time, I am still confident in this team. Tim's still one of the best big men in the NBA, on both ends. If he can get the support he needs: Parker playing in 2009 form, Manu healthy, Splitter acclimated to the faster-paced NBA game; these and more are all things that could make the Spurs a formidable opponent, that also have at least a reasonable chance of occurring.
Only time will tell. This is definitely one of our last years being labeled a contender just because of our core. Maybe our last. Still think Tim and co. could do it.
Last edited by z0sa; 10-21-2010 at 05:34 PM.
I agree. Spurs have way too many boo-boo's that won't be fixed any time this season. They have too many holes and won't be finding the multiple cogs to fill those holes any time soon.
They are the true definition of a 'Pretender' and definitely not a dark horse.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions