Pop's assessment: Fact or Fiction?

[ChumpDumper]

Then why didn't you write it that way the first time?

I chose to be more accurate in my post. Is that a problem for you, bro?

[ohmwrecker]

Then how could he "infer" you won the argument, bro?

That assessment was solely based on who abandoned their "schtick" first.

It's all right there, bro.

[ChumpDumper]

That assessment was solely based on who abandoned their "schtick" first.

It's all right there, bro.

I tried to tell him.

Did you consider what you posted to be a joke?

[TJastal]

And yeah, you have no idea what backtracking means, bro.

So you're now telling me you've never heard of the "I was just joking, dude!" defense...



Keep digging, bro.

[ChumpDumper]

So you're now telling me you've never heard of the "I was just joking, dude!" defense...

Sure. I hear you say it all the time.

[ohmwrecker]

I tried to tell him.

Did you consider what you posted to be a joke?

It was intended to be humorous, yes.

[TJastal]

Oh, by the way, if ohmwrecker wasn't referring to any of uriel's posts, what did this quote on page 5 mean, bro?

But it's not a deeper understanding -- merely a basic understanding of what was explicitly stated in the posts.

[ChumpDumper]

It was intended to be humorous, yes.

I figured as much, but wanted to be sure. I really can't imagine anyone taking it so seriously as to try to use it in an actual argument, but I've seen some really stupid things posted on this board.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, by the way, if ohmwrecker wasn't referring to any of uriel's posts, what did this quote on page 5 mean, bro?

I would guess that he played me as well, bro. I don't take it as personally as you seem to be right now, but I certainly can believe that he wrote all of that without reading Uriel's posts.

Do you not find that plausible, bro?

[Nick Manning]

Goddamn, this thread is taking on a life of it's own

[TJastal]

I would guess that he played me as well, bro. I don't take it as personally as you seem to be right now, but I certainly can believe that he wrote all of that without reading Uriel's posts.

Do you not find that plausible, bro?

Uh, no, bro. He hadn't yet said anything about understanding or even reading uriel's posts. How could you infer any of that? And play you in this way? Unless you were just joking. Is that what you were doing, playing a joke on all of us, bro?

[ChumpDumper]

Uh, no, bro. He hadn't yet said anything about understanding or even reading uriel's posts.

Exactly, bro. That's my point.

How could you infer any of that?

I said my inference was faulty. Did you not understand that bro?

And play you in this way? Unless you were just joking. Is that what you were doing, playing a joke on all of us, bro?

It's quite clear what I said, bro. I think your record for not understanding plainly composed posts speaks for itself at this point.

[Nick Manning]

How did the Chump-TJ fight start? I doubt it was this thread tbh

[ChumpDumper]

How did the Chump-TJ fight start? I doubt it was this thread tbh

I don't know tbh. I'm sure he was just joking. Off to do some work -- back in an hour or so.

[TJastal]

"Your inference was faulty" is your excuse for being exposed as an outright liar? Not cool, bro.

And I find it hilarious that now your holding me accountable to understanding all these "faulty inferences" and "jokes" that you've littered throughout the thread, as if I'm supposed to be keeping perfect track of all your bull and lies. All I can say is good luck with your next argument, bro.

Peace out.

[jimo2305]

[ChumpDumper]

"Your inference was faulty" is your excuse for being exposed as an outright liar? Not cool, bro.

Huh?

What are you ranting about now, bro?

And I find it hilarious that now your holding me accountable to understanding all these "faulty inferences" and "jokes" that you've littered throughout the thread, as if I'm supposed to be keeping perfect track of all your bull and lies. All I can say is good luck with your next argument, bro.

Peace out.

I don't expect you do be able to do much of anything, bro. You proved that in this thread. All I can say is good luck trying to understand English, bro.

[Sean Cagney]

Sadly, I think Pop is being sincere....hope he ultimately ends up right and rights the ship...

With this same team intact no way in you can right the SHIP! They MIGHT pass round one or maybe two this year, but thats IT if fully healthy! Grizz were a huge matchup for the Spurs, if the Spurs win game one this is a completely different series and Spurs win in 7 IMO.

[Uriel]

Well, you did nothing to address Uriel's actual argument, which is to be expected. Some of you actually agreed with him while thinking you weren't, which is hilarious.

You might want to go back and read it again without so much hysteria.

TJastal, I believe ChumpDumper was referring to this tidbit, copied and pasted directly from my initial thesis.

One particularly cogent argument that Bonner apologists have used all season long is his surprisingly and consistently high plus-minus rating. Of course, you did remark that what happens in the regular season is irrelevant to the discussion because, "When playoff time rolls around, when the lights get bright and the playoff pressure turns up, Matt Bonner is nowhere to be found." But a closer look at his plus-minus rating for the PLAYOFFS actually says otherwise.

Of the 11 units that yielded a net positive plus-minus rating, Matt Bonner appeared in 7 of them, including the top 6. Granted, Bonner detractors will point to the fact that Bonner also appears in 7 out of the 12 units that yielded a negative rating. But, as Varner astutely pointed out in his blog post, "It doesn’t establish the illegitimacy of Bonner’s minutes, it only establishes that Coach Popovich must carefully deploy Matt Bonner. Matt Bonner, then, is a kind of high risk/high reward player. Used with the right combination of players, he’s a help. Used wrongly, he hurts the team."

And this is exactly the point I've been trying to make all along. Matt Bonner hasn't succeeded in the postseason because he hasn't been put in a good position to do so. The fact that, when deployed with the right combination of players, he has been able to yield a positive plus-minus rating, and is featured in the 6 most effective units the team has used against the Grizzlies strongly suggests that, when used correctly, Bonner is more of an asset than a liability.

To which you responded in the following manner:

Your mind is warped. Senor_spur was obviously referring to Bonner's post season results and Pop expecting Bonner to actually make a difference for the team, which he has clearly not in 4 years.

Which somehow you've twisted into a flawed, warped analogy which probably cons utes a brand new logical fallacy nobody has ever even seen.

Clearly, you did not respond to the argument. In fact, the manner by which you responded strongly implies that you were unable to comprehend the point being made in the first place. If you still don't understand, let me spell it out for you: the evidence I used in my defense of Mat Bonner cited statistics from the playoffs, to which you responded that Matt Bonner was a regular season wonder, yet a colossal playoff failure. Do you see it yet? I just presented evidence to repudiate your argument, to which you responded by assuming the veracity of your initial premise, committing, incidentally, yet another logical fallacy: begging the question.

The fact that you would rant for 5 plus pages about arbitrary, irrelevant points in what essentially amounted to a red herring (clearly you did not take up my advice to read up on your logical fallacies) conveys your gross inability to discuss in a rational, cohesive manner, forcing you instead to resort to name-calling and personal attacks.

IQ don't mean squat if you lack natural ability. Bonner should stayed in the academic field tbh.

Of course it's easy for you to say that. You clearly don't have it in abundance. Quite frankly, I find your inability to comprehend even the most elementary, plainly stated tenets of the English language to be both painfully baffling as well as dishearteningly amusing. Oh, and your grammar is egregious.

As for the point about some of you actually agreeing with me while pretending to disagree:

Uriel sees that Bonner produces in the regular season so Pop is right in continuing to use him in the post-season.

The people who have watched Bonner choke every year in the playoffs after teasing spurs fans in the reg season believe the pattern has repeated often enough for Pop to have noticed the choking.

Why do you think Uriel is right,chump?

Actually, I stated that Matt Bonner, when used correctly, could be a major asset for the team. Since he was not always placed in a position to do so, then he yielded negative results as well as positive. The latter point is especially cogent when you consider that you yourself acceded to this point in the post I cited above. Hence, you implicitly agreed with me, even though you explicitly stated otherwise.

Correct and thanks TJastal

RJ has been so maligned for his poor play by fans and Spurs coaches - and deservedly so. He was originally miscast into a role with this team, that has been nearly impossible for him to fulfill. He's in an offense that doesn't take advantage of his strengths and the defensive expectations of him have been totally unrealistic. While the trade for RJ looked good at the time, and I applaud the Spurs for trying, it has been a colossal failure.

At the same time, Bonner has had 4 years of increased playing time and coaches trust - on the heels of the Robert Horry's departure. Yet he continuously proven to be a regular season wonder and a playoff choker. Yet he continues to get a free pass by Pop and his band of Popsucker disciples that inhabit this forum.

To continue rolling this guy out there as a key rotation player is truly the definition of insanity. The debacle that occurred in the Memphis series in only the last example of how the Spurs frontline has declined, and how Pop has failed provide inject the frontline with the type of help that Duncan has needed during his waning years.

There is much more wrong with this roster than just the poor production from their starting SF. If Pop and R.C. truly want to rid this roster of non-performing players, they shouldn't just stop by trying to ship out RJ.

I'm sorry SenorSpur, but there's really no need to resort to name-calling here. What I tried to provide was a reasonable, logical argument with evidence and statistics to try and elaborate on my initial points. At the very least, I deserve a proper rebuttal using similar means, not the ad hominem TJastal resorts to when he enters into his pseudo-intellectual mode.

[ChumpDumper]

implies

veracity

premise

cohesive

abundance

tenets

dishearteningly

cogent

implicitly

explicitly

elaborate

rebuttal

ad hominem

pseudo-intellectual

He's not going to understand these words, bro.

[TE]

This thread delivers.

[TE]

He's not going to understand these words, bro.

[GSH]

OMG - I just scanned this thread, and it makes me queasy. The Prophet Yavozerb predicted it would go 5 pages, and I didn't believe him. Turns out even he underestimated.

I'm trying to decide: go back and read every post in the thread, in detail - or watch a few hours of public access TV, and bang my head against a brick wall. I hear there's a Japanese game show where people have to grope around to try and find jewelry hidden in their own poop. I might give that a look.

Is it the heat getting to everybody?

[GSH]

Do that, non-stop for an hour. Your posts might get better

Damn. I hate it when I'm outmaneuvered by a word-ninja.


Seriously - even Tjastal has one ball. Nobody chooses Goebbels for a screen name unless they are totally overcompensating.

[GSH]

LOL... somewhere in hermaphrodite land, the mental wheels are spinning. He thinks, "I need a really good comeback to this one. If I post another weak suck response like that last one, everyone will really know I'm nutless. Maybe one of those funny pictures with FAIL written on them. Yeah... that's it. A really good FAIL pic."

G'night Gobbles. You're too pitiful to even spar with.