Regular season don't mean anything

[Blake]

Question, if I may, what does the year prior and after have to do with the Rockets ability to win in '95? The compe ion the same? The Rockets the same team? Health, age, any other factor the same?

Just wondering . . .

With Thorpe, the Rockets went 88-41 in the season and a half from 1993-Feb 1995.

With Drexler, the Rockets went 65-52 in the season and a half from Feb 1995-the end of 1996.

The compe ion was basically the same. One season difference isn't going to be much of a factor for age. Drexler missed a few games because of health which is another reason I think it wasn't a great deal after all.

Tim Duncan doesn't get butthurt about the Big Fundamental. It's just a nickname, Blake. You should be proud of it. You earned it and were bestowed it legitimately. It wasn't some contrived 'Mamba' or 'STAT' nickname you gave yourself. I mean, how may people are nicknamed Nancy? You can truly be the trend setter Cully always hoped to be.

Nobody is nicknamed Nancy that I'm aware of.

You calling me names doesn't mean it's a nickname. It's just continued butthurt on your part.

Oh, I'm ready to go EPIC meltdown, Nancy. EPIC.

I've seen worse meltdowns than yours in this thread. In fact, your meltdown in the mosque thread was much much worse than this one.

[Blake]

He really did say it.

Yes, it's my opinion that the Rockets were better off with Thorpe than Drexler.

I really am saying that and have been asking why you think they were better off with Drexler other than "the trade itself made it so."

It only took you a few pages of calling me Nancy before you finally comprehend what was being said.

[Blake]

Funny you should ask . . .

He's a racist.

So now it goes from calling me Nancy to calling me a racist.

Very telling.

[baseline bum]

What? The only thing that saved the Lakers last season was their regular season record that gave them homecourt vs Boston. No way Kobe's 6-24ing his way to a le if that game is on the Celtics' floor.

[Blackjack]

With Thorpe, the Rockets went 88-41 in the season and a half from 1993-Feb 1995.

With Drexler, the Rockets went 65-52 in the season and a half from Feb 1995-the end of 1996.

They were 30-17 with Thorpe before trading him during the 94-95 season. Before and after is irrelevant.

The compe ion was basically the same. One season difference isn't going to be much of a factor for age. Drexler missed a few games because of health which is another reason I think it wasn't a great deal after all.

So why did the Rockets -- the reigning champion -- make a trade of that magnitude with not much more than two months left in the season?

Nobody is nicknamed Nancy that I'm aware of.

You calling me names doesn't mean it's a nickname. It's just continued butthurt on your part.

You really seem hung up on the nickname, Blake. A dude in the NBA played with the name "Bimbo" and owned it. Own it, my man. Nancy ain't nothing to be ashamed of.

I've seen worse meltdowns than yours in this thread. In fact, your meltdown in the mosque thread was much much worse than this one.

That's why you're still butthurt over, after however the long ago that was? You really have been waiting quite a long time for an opening to bounce back from that, haven't you?

Yes, it's my opinion that the Rockets were better off with Thorpe than Drexler.

I really am saying that and have been asking why you think they were better off with Drexler other than "the trade itself made it so."

Have you taken the time to look how good Drexler was for the Rockets during the playoffs by any chance?

It only took you a few pages of calling me Nancy before you finally comprehend what was being said.

I've known what you've meant all along. You've failed to provide anything close to as much validation or validity for your belief than I have for mine, tbh.

My rationale: The reigning champion had been getting beat by their matchup nightmare (Seattle) and their in-state rival who happened to have the league's best player that year (SA; Robinson) and wound up swinging a trade with a little more than two months left in the regular season -- an admission of not having a team they thought capable of winning the le that year, if I ever saw one . . .

Your rationale: The reigning champion made a trade with a little more than two months left in the season just 'cause. They could have won the le without it but figured it'd be cool to reunite Hakeem and Clyde. They were just that good.

And your reasoning? They won the championship the year prior and they flamed out the year after. Their regular season record wasn't as good as it was before and after the Drexler trade.

I'm gonna be serious for a moment, just for a tiny, fleeting, passing moment, but ask yourself this:

Why is it that the first champion didn't remain champion until their roster turned over or was retired; and that a back-to-back or three-peat are seen as feats of excellence and not common occurrences?

Oh, and pertaining to common sense, did the Rockets record after the Drexler trade in 94-95 prior to the playoffs reflect the team playing at it's proven championship-caliber best or an acclimation period after a significant trade?

Thanks.

So now it goes from calling me Nancy to calling me a racist.

Very telling.

You really are adorable. You take yourself and the internets WAY too seriously.

I don't think you're a racist, Nancy. It was only a little affectionate sharp-sticking.

In truth, I have no idea who and what you are pertaining to the notion. But I, unlike yourself, give people the benefit of a doubt until proven otherwise.

This guy will never accuse someone of being a racist, telling them they have to prove otherwise.

No proving a negative with me, my man. It's not necessary.

I'm a communicator.

[Blake]

They were 30-17 with Thorpe before trading him during the 94-95 season. Before and after is irrelevant.

Irrelevant? That's been my question all along

Were the Rockets better after with Clyde or before with Thorpe?

So why did the Rockets -- the reigning champion -- make a trade of that magnitude with not much more than two months left in the season?

The irony here is that why they made the trade is irrelevant to the simple question I've been asking.

They obviously thought it would make the team better.

Obviously you want to just leave it at "a trade was made, so they are better."

Sorry that I overestimated your IQ. I won't ask you any more simple questions regarding which squad was better.

You really seem hung up on the nickname, Blake. A dude in the NBA played with the name "Bimbo" and owned it. Own it, my man. Nancy ain't nothing to be ashamed of.

I'm not hung up on any names you call me.

You though are very clearly hung up on name calling due to the butthurt.

You should be ashamed of the name-calling, but enterainment-wise, I'm glad you're not.

That's why you're still butthurt over, after however the long ago that was? You really have been waiting quite a long time for an opening to bounce back from that, haven't you?

I was just referencing the severe meltdown you had in that other thread.

I don't get butthurt over silly messageboard posts, but there is plenty of evidence of yours in these two threads......all over some very simple questions that I was just asking for clarification on.

Have you taken the time to look how good Drexler was for the Rockets during the playoffs by any chance?

Absolutely. He was fantastic.

I've known what you've meant all along.

Nope. Clearly you have not.

You've failed to provide anything close to as much validation or validity for your belief than I have for mine, tbh.

You made the initial response that Clyde made the team better. I simply asked why.

You never asked for my belief and I never stated at any point that my belief was better than yours.

I just asked for clarification to which you got extremely offended and butthurt.

My rationale: The reigning champion had been getting beat by their matchup nightmare (Seattle) and their in-state rival who happened to have the league's best player that year (SA; Robinson) and wound up swinging a trade with a little more than two months left in the regular season -- an admission of not having a team they thought capable of winning the le that year, if I ever saw one . . .

Your rationale: The reigning champion made a trade with a little more than two months left in the season just 'cause. They could have won the le without it but figured it'd be cool to reunite Hakeem and Clyde. They were just that good.

That's not my rationale at all. I understand completely why they wanted to make a trade.

In the end, I don't think they were better off for it, and the from the games I recall watching and the detailed stats I've seen suggest as much.

And your reasoning? They won the championship the year prior and they flamed out the year after. Their regular season record wasn't as good as it was before and after the Drexler trade.

Comparing season records with Thorpe to the ones with Drexler is a starting point.

I'm gonna be serious for a moment, just for a tiny, fleeting, passing moment, but ask yourself this:

Why is it that the first champion didn't remain champion until their roster turned over or was retired; and that a back-to-back or three-peat are seen as feats of excellence and not common occurrences?

what first champion? I have no idea what this question has to do with anything.

What major roster moves did the Pistons make during their repeats? Lakers? Bulls? I don't know of any that was as huge or as questionable as the Drexler move during midway of a pretty good season.

Oh, and pertaining to common sense, did the Rockets record after the Drexler trade in 94-95 prior to the playoffs reflect the team playing at it's proven championship-caliber best or an acclimation period after a significant trade?

Thanks.

The Rockets went into the playoffs as a 6 seed and had some lucky breaks. It also took Hakeem playing at a level above and beyond his already MVP level.

The 1995-1996 team should have had plenty of time to acclimate. Instead, they didn't even win 50 games and got swept by the Sonics.

This bit of information appears to be irrelevant to you only because it doesn't jive with your opinion.

I don't think you're a racist, Nancy. It was only a little affectionate sharp-sticking.

Yes, but you still went to the name calling card, which again, is very telling about the amount of butthurt you have experienced in this thread.

In truth, I have no idea who and what you are pertaining to the notion. But I, unlike yourself, give people the benefit of a doubt until proven otherwise.

This guy will never accuse someone of being a racist, telling them they have to prove otherwise.

No proving a negative with me, my man. It's not necessary.

In truth, I have no idea what you are saying here.

I'm a communicator.

Whoever told you that you are is also a poor communicator......or just a liar.

Clearly, and for whatever reason, you still don't understand what the question is. I'll save you from any future butthurt and not ask it any more.

[FilSpursFan]

Someone's insecure today.

[Blake]

I'm a communicator.

Someone's insecure today.

[Blackjack]

Irrelevant? That's been my question all along

Were the Rockets better after with Clyde or before with Thorpe?

You already know the answer to that. Yes. Absolutey. With-out-a-doubt, I believe is exactly what I said in the post prior. Adorable.

The irony here is that why they made the trade is irrelevant to the simple question I've been asking.

They obviously thought it would make the team better.

Obviously you want to just leave it at "a trade was made, so they are better."

You're a dense one. Adorable, but dense.

They made the trade because they knew they weren't going to win without it. That's why a team with championship aspirations makes a trade of that significance that late in a season.

Ya know, because it takes time for talent to mesh, gel? You should be a Maverick or Suns fan. You'd fit right in, arguing that a regular season record is any indication that a team is better than a championship result.

Sorry that I overestimated your IQ. I won't ask you any more simple questions regarding which squad was better.

Now there's irony.

I'm not hung up on any names you call me.

You though are very clearly hung up on name calling due to the butthurt.

You should be ashamed of the name-calling, but enterainment-wise, I'm glad you're not.

You keep feeling the need to address it, Nancy. And you've got an awful lot of fondness for the word "butthurt".

Methinks someone protests too much . . .

I was just referencing the severe meltdown you had in that other thread.

You're never gonna get over that troll, are you? I mean, I didn't initially start out to do it, I really didn't, but offseason boredom and a beauty like yourself was really just the perfect storm, tbh.

Sorry you didn't enjoy it as much as I did.

I don't get butthurt over silly messageboard posts, but there is plenty of evidence of yours in these two threads......all over some very simple questions that I was just asking for clarification on.

Obviously you don't. No one uses the word that much without projecting.

Absolutely. He was fantastic.

Yeah, like having the most Win Shares, having a PER that was better than two Kobe's three as a sidekick to Shaq while rated as the team's best perimeter defender and third best defender overall to only Hakeem and Horry, something Kobe never was.

Yeah, he was fantastic -- and without him they don't beat the Spurs.

Nope. Clearly you have not.

I'm pretty sure saying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result goes hand-in-hand with doing. Just guessing. But maybe you can prove otherwise . . .

You have questions ...



but you'll never hear an adequate answer.

You made the initial response that Clyde made the team better. I simply asked why.

If you want some statistical facts, I just gave you some. If you had the common sense I assumed you to have, you wouldn't need to ask me how Clyde Drexler made that team better.

You never asked for my belief and I never stated at any point that my belief was better than yours.

You initiated the back and forth and have yet to accept 'Yes.' for an answer. Obviously you believe I'm wrong, which means you believe you are right, no?

I just asked for clarification to which you got extremely offended and butthurt.

You're an adorable, even if transparent one.

That's not my rationale at all. I understand completely why they wanted to make a trade.

In the end, I don't think they were better off for it, and the from the games I recall watching and the detailed stats I've seen suggest as much.

They won the Championship, no? They were worse off, how? Are you telling me the Rockets win the le without the trade and are better off next year?

So the Rockets in a win-now mode pull the trigger on a trade they obviously feel they had to make and it winds up working out, but your knowledge of the team from the outside looking in surpasses theirs? Interesting . . .

Otis Thorpe was more than capable of contributing the "fantastic" play needed from Drexler that postseason

Comparing season records with Thorpe to the ones with Drexler is a starting point.

No, that's irrelevant. You must have had one of those basketball hoops with water or sand in the bottom. You seem to really like to move that goal around. The only one I ever had was cemented like a son .

I said the Rockets needed Drexler to win the 94-95 le. You took exception. The actions of the Rockets suggest they needed him to win the le that year; the performance needed from Drexler for the team to win the le suggests it was more than they ever could have dreamed of getting from Thorpe -- not to mention the kick in the ass and energy injected into a team that the organization felt they needed and had to have.

But again, that's common sense. Some possess it, you obviously don't -- or you're just unwilling to concede when you're wrong or not winning the debate?

Could be . . .

what first champion? I have no idea what this question has to do with anything.

You're getting lost a lot, aren't you?

You seem to believe the Rockets 93-94 championship has some kind of bearing on next year and the player they got rid of. It doesn't -- otherwise the Larry O'Brien wouldn't change hands all that often, eh?

The Rockets couldn't win the le without trading for a player that could be "fantastic". To their credit, they got it done. With Thorpe, they don't. They knew/know it, I do as well, and I'm guessing though you'd never admit it, you do as well.

But party on, Blake.

What major roster moves did the Pistons make during their repeats? Lakers? Bulls? I don't know of any that was as huge or as questionable as the Drexler move during midway of a pretty good season.

They didn't need to and they didn't. They're irrelevant to the conversation. The Rockets did need to and they did happen to.

That's why you know they had to make the trade: Reigning champions don't make moves like that unless there's the feeling of impending doom. They know they're not good enough.

Damn, there's that common sense again.

The Rockets went into the playoffs as a 6 seed and had some lucky breaks. It also took Hakeem playing at a level above and beyond his already MVP level.

WTF?

So without Drexler they're still able to capitalize on those breaks; and how does this have anything to do with whether the Rockets did or did not need Clyde?

The 1995-1996 team should have had plenty of time to acclimate. Instead, they didn't even win 50 games and got swept by the Sonics.

Again, WTF? What does 95-96 have to do with 94-95? You do know that the Rockets were an aging team and had just played in two consecutive Finals though, right?

This bit of information appears to be irrelevant to you only because it doesn't jive with your opinion.

Well, yeah it's irrelevant to me, Nancy. It has nothing to to with the debate.

Yes, but you still went to the name calling card, which again, is very telling about the amount of butthurt you have experienced in this thread.

I knew something good would come from this. I've got a new drinking game:

'"Butthurt" from Nancy and bottoms up, y'all!

In truth, I have no idea what you are saying here.

And that's why you're still bent over it. You never were able to grasp what happened or what it was all about.

Whoever told you that you are is also a poor communicator......or just a liar.

I'm a communicator.

Clearly, and for whatever reason, you still don't understand what the question is. I'll save you from any future butthurt and not ask it any more.

DRINK!!!

[Blackjack]

And seriously, you're welcome for that (I ain't breaking quotes down like that anymore).

Looking forward to it, Nancy.

[Blake]

i'm a communicator.

someone's insecure today.

[Blackjack]