Reply With Quote
Because he posted this:
Maybe you can tell me what you get out of that sentence?
If you think it’s as simple as “winning is good”, “losing is bad”. Then you don’t understand as well as you think you do.
Because he posted this:
Maybe you can tell me what you get out of that sentence?
Why? It's an opinion. Ultimately that's what this game is all about.
Is your (supposedly differing) opinion somewhat more valuable?
I'm not sure what game you're referring to.
And where did I say my opinion was more valuable? You've tried to explain the reasoning of the opposing view as "winning is bad". You clearly don't understand. Or do you think you do?
Basketball.
If you can't recognize the difference between asking a question and making a claim, then you have larger problems.
Says who? You? I disagree.
That's because you don't understand.
Which is perfectly ok
You can't prove that. Which means I understand perfectly.
Which is perfectly ok, tbh
You already proved it, tbh.
And I thought our argument was stupid . . .
Thank you for finally agreeing that I proved I understand
All season long, I have been telling timvp that this Spurs team is tallying a lot of wins, but a lot of fluke wins. They have had a bunch of lucky comeback victories. They have caught a lot of teams shorthanded. I jokingly (maybe not) call this team the Fluke Spurs.
To stop being the Fluke Spurs, they need to get a lot better on D. Pop might have pulled the plug early, but it's for the best. What good would a fluke comeback have done? It would have put another W on the board, but the Spurs would continue to still have an inflated sense of how good they are.
They aren't good enough to do any damage in the playoffs. And I know... playoffs aren't in January, yada, yada, yada. But to get hungry, they have to stop winning all the time.I know it sounds stupid. And you can say they are professionals, they don't get complacent, etc. However, when you have the best record in the league, you aren't hungry.
I hope they go on a four-game skid.
You already proved you don't understand, tbh.
Prove it or STFU, tbh
The 72:10 Bulls got owned by Orlando one night. It happens to everyone.
Then again, I went 82 - 0 on my PS3 on NBA LIVE 2010, when I made all my team 7'4" with PG skills... So it's obviously possible if someone just paid attention to the instructions.
FWIW, I also know how to use multi-quote:
I understand it. You keep claiming that I don't.
Prove that I don't. Be specific.
The quotes don't include any post from you.
So you didn't prove anything.
Furthermore, I dispute that those quote prove I don't understand.
Now please prove that I don't understand.
I need to get at least some work done today.
Why do those quotes need to include posts of mine? If after the entire thread and all those comments i quoted, you boiled the argument down to "winning is bad". Then you clearly don't get it.
Because you're the one making the claim that I don't understand/don't get it.
Thus, the burden of proving that I don't understand is yours.
Stop beating around the bush and prove that I don't understand.
As far as i'm concerned it's obvious you don't understand. Why do I have to prove that to you?
If you understood the logic behind the opposing argument why did you make this comment? That obviously isn't the rationale behind thinking the Spurs were better off losing that game. So why were you arguing against a point that was never made?
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...e-win-tuesday/Gregg Popovich played for the long term, not the win Tuesday
Kurt Helin
Be clear about this — the Knicks earned their victory over the Spurs. For the first time seemingly in memory, the Knicks pushed an elite team into their game. The Knicks hit their shots (ones provided by unusually poor defense from the Spurs, but the Knicks hit them). They made the plays. It’s a signature win for a young Knicks team and they should celebrate it.
But at the end of this game, Spurs coach Gregg Popovich made the move of a wise coach with a veteran team that has some scratching their heads, as Henry Abbott at TrueHoop pointed out.
With 3:10 left in a game in New York, the Spurs down by ten and the game a longshot, but decidedly undecided, Popovich summoned from his bench three players who had not taken off their sweats all night: Chris Quinn, Ime Udoka and Tiago Splitter. They were to complete the Spurs’ comeback — or not, as it turned out — teamed with Matt Bonner and Gary Neal.
Sitting on the Spurs’ bench: Some of the greatest clutch performers in NBA history, including Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker. With the best players out there playing, maybe this was about to become three minutes for the ages. The Spurs have come back from bigger deficits in less time.
After this game, the Spurs hopped on a plane and flew to Boston, where they face the Celtics tonight. A back-to-back as games 34 and 35 in a long 82-games season. A regular season which is followed by what really matters — the playoffs.
It comes back to what the Celtics showed last season, going 11-11 in their last 22 but getting rested and healthy for the playoffs — then making a run all the way to Game 7 of the NBA finals. What really matters for veteran teams is taking care of themselves and reaching the playoffs in good condition.
If that means not throwing everything into a longshot at a comeback in early January, then so be it. Fans may not love it, the league may not love it, but it’s the reality in a six-month long regular season.
Why keep making the claim if you can't back it up?
Because I obviously do not agree with it. I don't agree with the notion that under any cir stances "winning is bad".
Did the original poster opine that maybe winning last night's game could have been worse than losing it? That's not a point made?
I watched the game and my two cents are that SA might've won the game, but probably not and even though SA did lose, SA can afford to lose and that I side with Pop.
And yes, losing and resting does benefit the team in the long term.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
