Kyrie Irving

[pass1st]

so now it's about "stepping up across several boxes"? That's not a subjective way of judging it at all.

Duncan having 18 PPG, 11 rebounds per game and 2.3 blocks per game isn't stepping up across several boxes? What exactly qualifies as "stepping up over several boxes" in your book?

You went from using the leading scorer in the finals as your argument to loling points. If that's not switching lanes, I'd love to see what is.

11 rebounds isn't stepping up when that's your average dumbass
not knowing what "stepping up" is

[Goran Dragic]

11 rebounds isn't stepping up when that's your average dumbass
not knowing what "stepping up" is

so now you have to do better than your average to be the best player on the team

[pass1st]

Duncan led the Spurs in rebounds, assists and blocks during the 2007 finals, while being tied with Finley and Ginobili for the lead in steals.

What's your next argument since that didn't work

.5 leading, go back to Birds stats and see the discrepancy across the scores.

nit-picking
desperate

[pass1st]

so now you have to do better than your average to be the best player on the team

taking it out of context

Doing your average isn't stepping up

[Goran Dragic]

.5 leading, go back to Birds stats and see the discrepancy across the scores.

nit-picking
desperate

So since Duncan only led his team in every category other than points just by a teeny tiny bit he's not the best player on his team?

[pass1st]

So since Duncan only led his team in every category other than points just by a teeny tiny bit he's not the best player on his team?

He didn't step up in the finals

back-peddling once again

[Goran Dragic]

.5 leading, go back to Birds stats and see the discrepancy across the scores.

nit-picking
desperate

Nit picking would be using a 4 game sample size over a 102 game season to determine the best player on a team.

It would also be arguing semantics about how much you need to lead your team by in certain categories in a manner precise enough so it helps your argument but not the other person's

[pass1st]

Nit picking would be using a 4 game sample size over a 102 game season to determine the best player on a team.

It would also be arguing semantics about how much you need to lead your team by in certain categories in a manner precise enough so it helps your argument but not the other person's

4 game sample in the 4 games that mattered

Thinking having 2 more assists is as big a deal as a dozen more

[Goran Dragic]

He didn't step up in the finals

back-peddling once again

How am I backpedaling? When did I ever give a about the highly subjective phrase "Stepping up?" That was your re ed argument.

[Goran Dragic]

4 game sample in the 4 games that mattered

So those 4 games mattered more than the other 98 games?

[pass1st]

How am I backpedaling? When did I ever give a about the highly subjective phrase "Stepping up?" That was your re ed argument.

You gave up on Duncan not stepping up, go back to leading scoring, then go back and try to say Duncan was stepping up.

Not sure why you're so passionate about a French , parker, proving you wrong.

[Goran Dragic]

You gave up on Duncan not stepping up

Point out where I ever used Duncan "stepping up" as an argument.

go back to leading scoring

The Cedric Maxwell example was used to debunk your stupid argument. I don't actually think Cedric Maxwell was the best player on the 1981 Celtics.

then go back and try to say Duncan was stepping up.

When did I ever say Duncan "stepped up"?

Not sure why you're so passionate about a French , parker, proving you wrong.

thinking Parker has proven me wrong. Just because your very challenged brain views Parker as the best player on the 2007 Spurs doesn't mean nearly all intelligent members of society do.

[pass1st]

So those 4 games mattered more than the other 98 games?

They don't hand out regular season championships

[Goran Dragic]

They don't hand out regular season championships

Thanks for not answering the question.

[100%duncan]

Very efficient guy. Has high bball IQ, knows when to drive and to settle for a jumpshot. Also good in passing. Cleveland's savior indeed.

[pass1st]

so now it's about "stepping up across several boxes"? That's not a subjective way of judging it at all.

Duncan having 18 PPG, 11 rebounds per game and 2.3 blocks per game isn't stepping up across several boxes? What exactly qualifies as "stepping up over several boxes" in your book?

You went from using the leading scorer in the finals as your argument to loling points. If that's not switching lanes, I'd love to see what is.

Insinuating that this performance is stepping up

Cedric stepped up in scoring, Bird stepped up in rebounding, assisting and stealing. Duncan averaged what he averages.

Why so defensive, going to insults? Throwing out Magic because you know your argument is moot

[pass1st]

Thanks for not answering the question.

You're welcome, but I did answer. 98 games are moot if you aren't the best in the last few.

[Goran Dragic]

Insinuating that this performance is stepping up

I never said nor insinuated that. I think your "stepping up" criteria, whatever it is, is a really stupid way of measuring who the best player is.

Cedric stepped up in scoring, Bird stepped up in rebounding, assisting and stealing. Duncan averaged what he averages.

So if you average what you average but still lead your team in almost all categories, while someone with worse averages does average more than he normally does, his performance is better? You randomly brought averages into the picture, I have no idea what you mean by them.

Why so defensive, going to insults? Throwing out Magic because you know your argument is moot

My argument is based mainly on the fact PGs are the shortest players on the court. Magic being 6'9" does nothing to disprove the theory that the shortest player on the court more often than not isn't leading his team to a le.