Spurs: Boris Diaw vs. David Lee

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Resorting to logical concepts.

yeah, arguments are generally based off logic and logical concepts. Thanks for admitting your aren't

[benefactor]

Such a typical Fkla thread. He's got to be the most annoying poster to argue anything with the way he continually changes the parameters.

[FkLA]

yeah, arguments are generally based off logic and logical concepts. Thanks for admitting your aren't

Arguments and most things in general are alot more complex than the re ed basic angle you took. You dont just completely ignore changes to other variables, disphit.

Did I end up being wrong about Diaw? Sure and Ive admitted that, but youre trying to somehow get at how ridiculous it was for me to take into account that Diaw was in a much more favorable situation with the Spurs...which led me to expect more out of him here than at other places. Which is just stupid on your part.

[FkLA]

Such a typical Fkla thread. He's got to be the most annoying poster to argue anything with the way he continually changes the parameters.

Such a typical bene post. Come in, quietly jack off another poster, and exit.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

So you're admitting your illogical argument was wrong. Good job, you're making progress. Proud of you.

[DMC]

Resorting to logical concepts.

But if you wanna play like that, if variables are changed theres always the possibility of a different outcome. Thats a basic concept in a basic algebra class all accounting majors have to take.

No, the term "always" implies an infinite number of outcomes but there are a fixed number of possible outcomes, otherwise you could not get any outcome as the odds for it would be infinitely impossible as well.

[FkLA]

I was busy engineering, got.

Anyways I always said Diaw on the Spurs, go back and read the earlier posts in this thread. Thats because I expected (wrongly) that playing on a team like the Spurs would bring out the best in him...that obviously hasnt been the case which Ive admitted. Not sure what else youre trying to get at tbh.

Read previous posts, I always said I liked what Diaw brought to the table on a team like the Spurs over what Lee did. Obviously it would make no sense on my part to argue strictly numbers and say 4-4>20-10. Or to compare them when theyre in two completely different situations in GS and SA, you need some type of hypotheticals to make the comparison make some sense...and I always said on a lottery team Lee is the better option because of Diaws laziness. On a team like the Spurs I took Diaw because I assumed he wouldnt be lazy.

I was wrong about him getting his together. Not seeing how the assumption is illogical though, its not like players that have a reputation of being lazy raising their games on good teams is unheard of.

Ive said Diaw fooled me and I expected (wrongly) things from him that havent panned out numerous times.

Your basic angle to how logic works is whats re ed. Youre trying to get at something else and its just stupid. You shouldve just taken the W and exited instead of basically arguing that other variables should never be taken into account.

[benefactor]

I talking to you ...and no one else. You being dumb as has only to do with you. And at you needing only one post to prove my point.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Ive said Diaw fooled me and I expected (wrongly) things from him that havent panned out numerous times.

Your basic angle to how logic works is whats re ed. Youre trying to get at something else and its just stupid. You shouldve just taken the W and exited instead of basically arguing that other variables should never be taken into account.

You don't seem capable of making the distinction between "accounting for other variables" and "assuming the effect those other variables have". This isn't comparable to an algebra question, it's a logic question.

Diaw getting his act together was a possibility, and you treated it as a foregone conclusion. I never said it was a sure thing Diaw wouldn't get his act together like the strawman you're trying to create right now. If you seriously can't make this logical distinction then I pray for your future.

[FkLA]

I talking to you ...and no one else. You being dumb as has only to do with you. And at you needing only one post to prove my point.

What exactly where you referring to with me 'changing parameters'? The original argument has been over, he was right and I was wrong there. Hes trying to get at something else. Thats not changing parameters dip . If youre gonna come in and talk to me have a reason behind it otherwise it comes off as you doing your usual jack off and exit routine.

[benefactor]

I'm not rehashing all of it because I've pretty much figured out arguing anything with you is a waste of keystrokes. Anyone who can read and has a reasonable amount of comprehension skills can go back and see it for what it is.

[FkLA]

You don't seem capable of making the distinction between "accounting for other variables" and "assuming the effect those other variables have". This isn't comparable to an algebra question, it's a logic question.

Diaw getting his act together was a possibility, and you treated it as a foregone conclusion. I never said it was a sure thing Diaw wouldn't get his act together like the strawman you're trying to create right now. If you seriously can't make this logical distinction then I pray for your future.

Youre trying to suggest it was ridiculous of me to account for those variables. and thus expect postive changes out of Diaw. Thats what youve been trying to ridicule this whole time.

[FkLA]

I'm not rehashing all of it because I've pretty much figured out arguing anything with you is a waste of keystrokes. Anyone who can read and has a reasonable amount of comprehension skills can go back and see it for what it is.

Yeah, yeah, yeah got. Same old 'Im too good to even respond when Im wrong' bull . Not surprised.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Youre trying to suggest it was ridiculous of me to account for those variables. and thus expect postive changes out of Diaw. Thats what youve been trying to ridicule this whole time.

No, I'm ridiculing you for acting as if a possible scenario was a foregone conclusion, which is illogical.

[FkLA]

I did treat it as a foregone conclusion, and was wrong in doing so which Ive admitted about ten times already. Maybe it was the fact that it was in shorter doses or the fact that he was so much better than Blair/Bonner...but I liked what I saw out of him last season, didnt really lollygag the way he has at times this season despite being heavier. for sure fooled me, cause I was expecting bigger things from him.

Page 10. Why would you ridicule or call me out for something Ive conceded? Keep moving the goalposts though.

Like I said you shouldve taken the W and exited. No need for your re ed basic logic argument.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Page 10. Why would you ridicule or call me out for something Ive conceded? Keep moving the goalposts though.

Like I said you shouldve taken the W and exited. No need for your re ed basic logic argument.

I want you to admit it wasn't just wrong, but illogical too to treat a possible scenario as a foregone conclusion.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Either....

A) You agree treating possible scenarios as foregone conclusions is illogical

or

B) You think it's perfectly logical to treat possible scenarios are foregone conclusions

A or B. Simple question.

[FkLA]

I took something as a foregone conclusion when making my argument. That led to me ending up looking dumb and being completely wrong...what makes you think I would argue that treating it as a foregone conclusion made no sense on my part? Maybe I didnt explicitly say it but come on got its pretty much implied, that wasnt what you were attempting to ridicule.

Its a nice, subtle attempt to try to change your argument though, Ill give you a A for effort.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

A or B. Simple question.

No surprise, dodge city.

[ElNono]

Diaw is a fat tbh. I honestly thought playing in an environment like the Spurs would bring out the best in him (which I would take over Lee), but dude just goes through the motions out there...he'll have a great 10, 5+, 5+ line here or there and then has an empty stat line the next game. Really unique skill set but just lazy as , cant believe I fell for this fat s tricks.

Diaw biggest problem is that he's lazy. He's been lazy his whole career. It's no surprise to see him struggling with something like rebounding, which is mostly hustle.

It's one of the main concerns going into this season for the Spurs, IMO. Now he got paid, will he get lazy again?

Heard it here first, tbh

[FkLA]

No surprise, dodge city.

Youre a got.

Read my previous post again.

Heard it here first, tbh

I was aware of Diaws lazy tendencies, just thought being in the best environment hes ever been in (including Phoenix) would counter that.

[Jodelo]

Bump!

David Lee averaging 20 11 54% shooting on an 18-9 team that's in the top half of the league defensively.....it's safe to say he's taking a wet on Diaw and FkLA

[Raven]

David Lee secured his third career triple-double in Friday's win over the Bobcats, scoring 23 points on 11-of-16 shooting with 11 rebounds and 11 assists.

Lee has been a top-7 fantasy play over the past two weeks and a top-15 play on the year as the Warriors have jumped all over a cupcake schedule to start the season. Their next 16 opponents have won about 60 percent of their games, and Lee's defense is still among league's worst at his position. We doubt his numbers fall below an early round level, but owners may want to test the waters and see if they can get a top-20 player in return.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Spurfan, still going with unquantifiable arguments

"His defense is weally weally bad! Diaw is a Spur, so that automatically means he's a great defender!"

[Amuseddaysleeper]

DuncanownsKobe my main man.

We gotta revisit Bosh vs Amare one more time

But yeah, Lee >>>>> Boris