When Spurs get to Finals:

[vander]

My comment didn't argue against any of that. My comment was directed at the fact that comparing Bonner's production to the combined production of the Big 3 is silly. It is.

what about it is silly? what about it doesn't compare?

[Oh, Gee!!]

better question: when spurs win the finals, what will be the design on the t-shirts and caps? can I pre-order?

[Mel_13]

what about it is silly? what about it doesn't compare?

Go ahead. Compare Bonner's production to the combined production of the Big 3. You won't be able to do it without looking silly. Prove me wrong if you can.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

OMG, have you seen vander's posts?



Ha ha, he's such a dumbass.


Now he's saying that Bonner is more than 1/15 productive
than the big three.

Wow. I can't believe how big a dumbass vander is.

[Cessation]

Actually, Ginger is getting 4 mill a year, while Gary Neal 600k, so no Bonner is not the best bang for the buck.

[JR3]

I kinda feel that the 2-3-2 eliminates HCA.

I agree. 2-2-1-1-1 is the best format.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

I'd like the Spurs to beat the Celtics in the Finals.

[ALVAREZ6]

crofl bonner being 1/15th productive as combined efforts of big 3. So, Bonner amounts to 1/3 the total value of any given big 3 player. LOL. Tony is 5 times better overall on offense, 2.5 as good on defense for a total of 7.5. Manu is about 5 times as well, just not currently, on offense, and perhaps 5 times better on defense as well. Tim Duncan is about 4 times better on offense, 9 times better on defense.

vander, your stupid calculations on your stupid statistic are off I think.

[Seventyniner]

The big 3 have a combined 17 All-Star appearances, right? If Bonner was worth 1/15 of that, he'd have one by now.

Ditto for All-NBA Team selections.

[Spurs and Mavs fan]

Not to sound defeatist - not at all - but I would hate losing to the Celtics far worse than losing to the Bulls.


I'd rather we played Chicago; plus, I think it would still favor us matchup wise even without HCA.

[tlongII]

If the Spurs play the Blazers in the playoffs I will bet wine against Jimcs50!

[concken]

Well intended threads always turn to bc of yall. Thanks

[Em-City]

OMG, have you seen vander's posts?



Ha ha, he's such a dumbass.


Now he's saying that Bonner is more than 1/15 productive
than the big three.

Wow. I can't believe how big a dumbass vander is.

haha. truth.

[vander]

. . . . . . . . Bonner . . . Big 3
on court . . . +8.8 . . . . . . +8.7
off court . . . +4.8 . . . . . . +2.3
difference . . . +4 . . . . . . +6.4 (x3 = +19.2)
PPS. . . . . . . . 1.3 . . . . . . 1.28 or so?
adj FG% . . . . 62% . . . . . . 51% or so
scoring
rebounding
A/TO
etc.
etc.

i doubt there's a stat where Bonner hasn't been at least 1/15th as productive, but it's mob rule on spurstalk, so none of the facts matter, and those arguing against Bonner never have to support their claims

you guys are hilarious, and sad. poor Bonner, greatest scapegoat in NBA history, the sole reason the Spurs won't 5-peat this year

[vander]

Well intended threads always turn to bc of yall. Thanks

actually this was a terrible thread, that's why I had to derail it

[Mel_13]

. . . . . . . . Bonner . . . Big 3
on court . . . +8.8 . . . . . . +8.7
off court . . . +4.8 . . . . . . +2.3
difference . . . +4 . . . . . . +6.4 (x3 = +19.2)
PPS. . . . . . . . 1.3 . . . . . . 1.28 or so?
adj FG% . . . . 62% . . . . . . 51% or so
scoring
rebounding
A/TO
etc.

See, I told you that you would look silly, but you couldn't help yourself.

[mytespurs]

Do we want to play Boston with HCA, or do we want to play Chicago without HCA?

I have been wondering which would be best.

Slow your roll-spurs haven't clinched final seed yet. And the ways spurs have played lately, doubt hc would matter as in spurs may not mke it that far.

[SenorSpur]

I think the cart is now pulling the horse.

[silverblackfan]

. . . . . . . . Bonner . . . Big 3
on court . . . +8.8 . . . . . . +8.7
off court . . . +4.8 . . . . . . +2.3
difference . . . +4 . . . . . . +6.4 (x3 = +19.2)
PPS. . . . . . . . 1.3 . . . . . . 1.28 or so?
adj FG% . . . . 62% . . . . . . 51% or so
scoring
rebounding
A/TO
etc.
etc.

Wow. Did not think this comparison would go any farther. I mean.. just wow.

[itzsoweezee]

Boston. That teams looks like . The O'Neals are your center options? LMAO.

The Bulls are ridiculously good. They would probably crush the Spurs. Thibadeu's (sp) defense would on Popovich's "system." And the Spurs cannot guard Rose or Boozer. I can't see that series going more than five games.

[Old School 44]

I kinda feel that the 2-3-2 eliminates HCA.

Yep, I always disliked this format for the finals. You work all year to secure home court and the league rewards you by taking it away.

Regarding the question, I'd go with Boston, just because I'd like to see the Duncan/Garnett matchup on the biggest stage.

[Jimcs50]

actually this was a terrible thread, that's why I had to derail it

You would derail a thread about lasting peace in the Middle East.

[DesignatedT]

That's a pretty tough one but that's the last thing I'm worried about.

Regarding the 2-3-2, I never liked this setup either but I still definitely think homecourt is valuable. The finals are almost always going to go 6 games rather then not and to have those last 2 games at home is very crucial.

[Jimcs50]

That's a pretty tough one but that's the last thing I'm worried about.

Regarding the 2-3-2, I never liked this setup either but I still definitely think homecourt is valuable. The finals are almost always going to go 6 games rather then not and to have those last 2 games at home is very crucial.

I think the 2-3-2 format favors the team with HC more than the 22111 format. It is super had to win 3 straight games against a better team.

[Old School 44]

I just don't like if you have HCA in the finals and you split the first two games, you might not see home again. If the HCA team had the choice before the finals started, what format do you think they'd choose?