Game Thoughts: Spurs vs. Hornets Feb. 23

[slayermin]

I like timvp's writing because he thinks like a Spurs fan.

Great analysis as always.

[ducks]

manu and duncan played that many minutes
pop knew the spurs only have 2 games this week
plenty of rest before tuesday and thursday game against mavs

[SpurOutofTownFan]

Kurt Thomas didn’t play but while on the bench, the Spurs explained the rule to him about not leaving the bench if a fight breaks out. It was the first time Thomas had heard of the rule.

Priceless.

[vanvannen]

If he wrote it exactly that way, I wouldn't have said anything. You throw the word "sucked" around, it's different. Please, give me a little credit. I know how to read and I know exactly what he meant. I'm just saying the choice of phrasing was poor. No professional writer would disagree with me.

If you want to emphasize how good somebody is playing by comparing it to something else, it makes more sense to compare it to something else that was equally positive, instead of comparing it to something where the other thing is put down...

Why not just say, "He's playing like Michael Jordan in his prime right now?" That compliments the current thing and doesn't take away from the past thing. That's how you actually compliment something. It's pretty simple.

Maybe the best way I can explain it to you is to get away from basketball. Suppose you saw Tony Parker on the street and wanted to compliment him on his wife. Would you say, "Man Tony, Eva is so beautiful. Your last girlfriend must look like a dog compared to her?"

I'm guessing not, and Tony would be rightly offended. It's the same principle, you're complimenting the current thing by insulting a past thing in comparison. It's just not a very intelligent way to write.

Roy, just let it go man. You're making a fool of yourself.

[smeagol]

Roy, just let it go man. You're making a fool of yourself.

And not just any kind of fool . . .

You are beating some big ass fools that roam these boards . . . and that is saying something!

[SAGambler]

WTF? A fifth grader would understand "compared to" in the context it was used in that statement.

Do we have a bunch of idiots on here or just simply people that like to argue for arguements sake?

[T Park]

Do we have a bunch of idiots on here or just simply people that like to argue for arguements sake?

What is yes Alex?

[vanvannen]

I'll take stupid posters for $100.

[sabar]

timvp should have used a picture since some people haven't passed 4th grade reading comprehension.

[timvp]

if that was in the original analysis when I first read it, and then I owe a big apology. I read it from my blackberry and didn't read that at all, but if it was there I was wrong.

It's all good. I seriously couldn't figure out how what I wrote could have been viewed as me saying Manu sucked last year in the playoffs.

timvp, I love reading your critiques. They tell me you know a lot about pro-basketball and the NBA. The one thing I never read in your analyses is about (somehow) giving the opposing team, and players, any credit.

Bottom line, how about giving the opposition some credit for putting up a good fight, and not saying that we "let them?"

Noted, however it's difficult to factor in everything ... even when I write 2000 words. I can't touch on every aspect.

However, specifically last game I think really was more of the Spurs letting the Hornets into the game than anything else. The Spurs went on a huge scoring drought and while the Hornets were playing pretty decent defense, it was more of what the Spurs weren't doing.

And the previous game against the Hornets, I offered about as much praise as humanly possible:

The Hornets are for real. Byron Scott has that team playing great basketball. Chris Paul, David West and Tyson Chandler are all three very impressive young players. Paul is quickly becoming the best point guard in the NBA, while West and Chandler are two bigman with as much combined skill as any other duo in the league. Add to that threesome Peja Stojakovic and Morris Peterson and you have a very capable team.

What was amazing about this game for the Hornets is they basically just ran two plays continuously and it destroyed the Spurs’ defense. While I don’t think the Hornets would beat the Spurs in the playoffs if they only have two plays to go to, it sure worked on this night. Props to Scott for recognizing the Spurs’ weakness on defense and exploiting it over and over again. (Speaking of Byron Scott, why doesn’t he get more respect? He took a very average New Jersey Nets team to the Finals in back-to-back seasons and now he has a young team that has no home court advantage playing better than anyone else in the Western Conference.)

The Spurs basically just got beat down by a better team tonight. At this point in the season, the Hornets are better. You couldn’t watch that game and say differently.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85785

[timvp]

You could've phrased it better, that's all I'm saying. You can't throw the word "sucked" around, in any context and expect it to not have a negative connotation.

I guess we'll have to disagree. If I had said something like "compared to how Manu Ginobili is playing now, Michael Jordan sucked" would you have had a problem with that?

True, it wasn't the prettiest of comparisons and it required at least a couple seconds of mental digestion but I don't think it was too off the wall.

In fact, I don't even understand the need to reference the last playoffs at all.

I was setting up the next sentence.

Compared to how he’s playing now, Ginobili sucked last year in the playoffs. If he can continue this level of play, the Spurs are going to be extremely dangerous once the real season begins.

And I still stand by that. If Manu is playing and shooting as well as he is now once the playoffs begin, the rest of the NBA is in for a whole lot of hurt.

I'm just saying the choice of phrasing was poor. No professional writer would disagree with me.

That might be true. However, I'm not a professional writer and I don't aspire to be a professional writer. I'm just a Spurs fan who writes down his thoughts on the game after the game has finished. I take all of 20-30 minutes to write it and another 5 minutes to read it over. I don't aim for the end result to be professional quality.

Also, most typical writing is boring. I find my own writing boring sometimes too . If I can find a new way to describe something, then I can keep myself entertained as I write.

Why not just say, "He's playing like Michael Jordan in his prime right now?"

I've already used that line. That well is dry. I've used up pretty much every positive basketball cliche when writing about Manu as of late.

I had to invent a new way to get the point across. Overall, I think most people understood the point I was making.

That compliments the current thing and doesn't take away from the past thing. That's how you actually compliment something. It's pretty simple.

It's just not a very intelligent way to write.

If that's how you feel then that's your right. If you feel that what I write is unintelligent or you don't agree with how I word something, you are more than welcome to point it out.

The only reason I'm responding now is to clear up any miscommunication. I don't want people to think I said Ginobili sucked last year in the playoffs. But yeah, you can come in and say timvp sucks or the writing is garbage ... I really don't care at all. In fact, I kinda like it when people trash what I write.

So have at it