Pop's assessment: Fact or Fiction?

[blizz]

I kept seeing teasers on woai about don Harris asking a question that made pop walk out but I never saw it. Does anyone know what that was?

[ElNono]

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

To which you responded in the following manner:

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.

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:

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.

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.

What you proved is the notion that +/- is a horrible stat to gauge individual performance. Something that's been repeated ad-nauseum around these places, but apologists (not necessarily you) will cling on that for lack of any other decent evidence.

It's just silly to reach for such stats when just looking at his numbers (and the games) tell you the whole story: He received 3+ more minutes than last season, and shot even worse from downtown (33%). A guy that was ranked in the top 3 of 3pt percentage in the regular season dropped to #39 overall for the playoffs. 'Usage' has little to do with it. 'Matchups' is not either. He just becomes a below average player once you take out his one trick.

What I get from the +/- is that he has a terrible time playing with Hill. Which should come at no surprise.

All that said, I won't put this series on him. He's definitely part of the problem, and because Pop can't help himself, I'd like the team to move him.
Ultimately, if you want to argue that Pop is not 'using him right', then after 3 seasons, what makes you think that Pop will suddenly figure out what 'right' is?

[ElNono]

BTW, Richard Jefferson appears on 6 of the positive +/- lineups... Hill on 8(!)

[ElNono]

I think it would be dangerously shortsighted to think that this wasn't a horribly flawed team. If Manu's healthy, I think they get through Round 1, but even at full strength, that team wasn't going to seriously threaten a le.

This is basically it. With TD seriously declining, and Dice about to retire, you can't back them up with Matt and Blair and expect to get anywhere. And I'm not going to say anything about RJ that hasn't been said before.

[silverblk mystix]

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

To which you responded in the following manner:

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.

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:

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.

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.

Please...

#1)Disagreeing with you is impossible because you will only dream up of a new statistic or scenario to apologize for Pop and for Bonner.

Agreeing with you is the same because of #1 above and because it won't change how badly the Pop/Bonner combo suck.

#2) Spin it any way you want...if Pop continues to use Bonner at all it will only hurt the team. You can show Bonners stats until you are blue in the face and it still would not show how the team is weaker the longer that Bonner plays. If you watch a game and pay attention you won't waste your time searching for statistics to defend Pop or Bonner-if you are honest.

Pop can not possibly find a way to use Bonner correctly...the only CORRECT way to use Bonner is to slap the red out of his head and ship his ass to another team who is stupid enough to take him. THAT would be correct.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

silverblk mystix is a got

[TJastal]

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

To which you responded in the following manner:

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.

All you've shown with that list of top-5 units that you consider some kind of holy grail of basketball statistics is that the team does well in those stretches of limited minutes when Matt Bonner hits 3's. o, Capt Obvious. As El Nono posted, he is also on the bottom of the list several times as well. Wouldn't it be wonderful in a perfect world where other teams would let step aside and let Matty shoot uncontested 3's and he made everything? This manipulation of the stats that your all warm and fuzzy about is a complete waste of time, bro. If you look at the overall (+/-) for the playoffs (which IMO at least tells you something even remotely useful IMO):

http://www.nba.com/statistics/plusmi...t=9&team=Spurs

Look whose at the top.. Manu by himself @ +19. Followed by Blair @ +12, Danny Green +3, Steve Novak +2, McDyess -6, Splitter -9. Of these players, only Manu & McDyess logged > 100 minutes. So essentially that's saying these two players were the top relevant playoff contributors for the spurs. Rounding out the pack are Matt Bonner @ -12, Duncan @ -18, Parker @ -19, Jefferson @ -21, Neal @ -22, & Hill -24. Statistically speaking, Hill had the most miserable time of any spur in this series. But his name also appears in 6 of the top 7 five-man very limited minutes units in your list. Does this tell us Hill is just not being used correctly as well? Nah. All this says to me is like Bonner, Hill is an energy player who thrives on rhythym and when he's hitting 3's the team is doing well. Remember that guy, Capt Obvious? He says o again.

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.

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.

Well you're right about one thing, I was arguing about an irrelevant point for 5+ pages. You're flawed assumption (derived from that misleading graph that misses the big picture) that Bonner can be an effective playoff performer if only used in the correct lineups is baloney. You deserved to be called out on it. And as far as my use of the English language, I'm quite satisfied with it. The fact that is deriving you pain is a source of amusement for me.

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

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.

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.

You'll have to ask Senorspur what his opinion is, but there is no "pretending" to disagree from this ad-hominem slinging shoot from the hip spurstalker. The conclusions drawn from your misleading data suggest nothing of the sort that Bonner can be in any, way, shape or form a reliable playoff performer in any capacity. Better head to the next popper meeting and maybe you and Chumpdumper can discuss new pie charts or bar graphs over some raspberry cookies and tea. In the meantime, have a nice life.

[TJastal]

the only CORRECT way to use Bonner is to slap the red out of his head and ship his ass to another team who is stupid enough to take him. THAT would be correct.

[ChumpDumper]

lol misleading

[Stalin]

That's a whole lot of nothing, tbh.

[silverblk mystix]

silverblk mystix is a got. How do I know? His tastes like .