All Suns did in past 2 years was to win series against LA teams

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Every so often a thread comes along that makes you wonder, "What ever happened to this guy?"

[monosylab1k]

I just owned a TEAM of Texans!!!

FinDog, Im proud of you for not backpedalling and trying to come with new definitions for words like "past" etc. the way youve done in the past.

FROMWAYDOWNTOWN, youre definately no Hollinger. Your "analysis" was flawed in so many ways (as I proved) but you aren't enough of a man to just admit that it was STUPID! Your whole point was to try to judge team success over the past three years, but your arguments had so many holes Im guessing your hero is Michael Moore. Why penalize Dallas for losing in the first round while attempting to gage team success when that doesn't support your argument, right?

A lot of conspiracy theorists do this. They pick a theory and throw out all data that doesn't support that theory!

Nice try Texas. Who's next?

[Beno Udrih]

da_suns_fan gets owned everytime he hits "submit reply." He could say that the earth is round and the sky is blue and still managed to get owned.

So true.

[timmy21_4rings]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/bas...uting.reports/

Looks like Suns fans do not have any brain at all. This guy has picked an article that picked 4 teams (HEAT, NETS, SUNS and MAVERICKS) to be on Conference finals and none of them were in conference finals. How ugly can it get?

These are the kind of authors/writers/experts/analysts(so called) that would write Suns are robbed to justify their pick and avoid any potential firing.

How is your 401k doing buddy?

[timmy21_4rings]

Since this guy has been glossed to death by his fellow posters, I thought I might as well prove that I can own his ass too.

This will be easy because he went to the FinDog school of chrery-picking his data.

First of all, his criteria for what counts as wins and losses is so screwed up he should get a job with the BCS. Phoenix defeats Dallas in 2005, but they both get 1-1 records for that year even though Phoenix proved they were the superior team. Phoenix wins their 2007 first round matchup and Dallas does not, yet Phoenix gets an 0-1 record for 2007 while Dallas STAYS PERFECT (0-0) even though they lost to a team that DIDN'T win 50 games. As you can see, his analysis starts to take on a life of his own.

Cleveland isn't penalized NOT MAKING THE PLAYOFFS in 2005. Miami isn't docked for losing in the first round this year either.

Its also interesting how he selects "elite" teams. His test group consists of teams that have been to the conference finals multiple times or have reached the finals. He doesn't just select "conference finals" because that would mean he would have to include the Jazz who would be 0-1. He doesn't select "team who have been to multiple conference finals" because that would eliminate the Mavericks and the Cavaliers. He doesn't select "teams that have reached the finals" because that would eliminate the Suns! You could argue that he's pushing for a larger test group, yet he doesn't let the Rockets in even though a win again them count just as much as a win against the Spurs.

Basically, his analysis is just stupid. I could make an analysis of teams records against fellow conference teams that have made the finals over the past three years, and the ranks would be Dallas (1-0), Phoenix (1-3) and San Antonio (0-1).

Since the Suns added Nash, they've only put up a WINNING RECORD against every other team in the NBA minus the Spurs. They've had a book written about them and how they're changing the NBA. They've gone fighting for any type of recognition to the maximum number of national tv appearances allowed. This past year, they took the NBA Champions further than any other team, and would have won had it not been for suspensions to their front court for a game 5 that they earned the right to play at home during the regular season.

FROMWAYDOWNTOWN is just another bitter Spurs fan. Bitter the Suns continue to be America's team while San Antonio is labeled as either "boring" or "the team with Eva's husband". But like I said, don't be angry at the Suns, its not their fault everybody loves them.

That was easy....who's next?

Will it change the whole fact that PNX -- 1-3 (.250)(d. 05 DAL; l. 07 SA, 06 DAL, 05 SAS)? Isn't it enough for you to conclude that Suns can not stand against elite teams? Suns are highly overrated and suns fans are not ready to buy it. Suns are built for regular season where teams do not have enough time to prepare and they always prepare for regular teams & not for fast break teams. When post season comes, there are more time to prepare for any particular methodology and Suns can not rob anyone anymore.

[RonMexico]

This thread is making my head hurt.

I'm still trying to discipher the irony of Spurs fans complaining incessantly about how narrow-minded and annoying the Suns and their fans are, yet continue to make childish threads with les like "all Suns have done is win series against LA teams."

Is it guilt? Anger? Self-doubt? Small syndrome? Small market syndrome? I can't comprehend it right now, but hopefully we'll all find out sometime.

Rome wasn't built in a day, just like the Spurs first le wasn't built until 1999. Jesus Christ, I would love to have seen this message board around when Hakeem destroyed the reigning MVP in the playoffs and begin the "only Finals MVP counts" bull as Rockets fans.

[FromWayDowntown]

Your whole point was to try to judge team success over the past three years, but your arguments had so many holes Im guessing your hero is Michael Moore.

Yeah, except that wasn't my whole point. My whole point was to demonstrate that when it comes to beating quality teams in the playoffs, Phoenix has failed. In fact, my last post specifically said:

Again, I'm not trying to come up with some sort of wholesale analysis of playoff success in recent years; I'm simply trying to show that the Suns haven't beaten a good team -- a team that won 50+ regular season games -- in a playoff series since 2005.

Rather than actually address my actual argument, you change it to meet your own needs and then try to blow down the strawman you've set up for yourself. Again, though, the problem there is that you're making an argument for me that I never made for myself.

If anything the very nature of my analysis already admits that the Suns have had playoff success in the recent past -- in fact, I admitted that only 2 franchises have participated in more playoff series than the Suns since 2005 -- the number of series a club plays would seem to be indicative of playoff success, after all:

Try this one -- let's look at all teams that have played more than 5 playoff series in the last 3 years.

SAS -- 10
DET -- 10
PNX -- 8
MIA -- 8
DAL -- 7
CLE -- 6

The problem remains, however, that the Suns' playoff "successes" are built almost entirely on a foundation of defeating lesser teams, since they are, after 1-3 against teams that won 50+ games in the regular season. And that, after all, is my point.

Show me that the Suns' playoff successes have come against quality teams at playoff time -- teams that won 50+ games in the regular season, for instance -- and you might have a point.

The problem, of course, is that you can't make that argument.

(I'm glad, for your sake, that you didn't waste a post trying to get me to admit that the Suns compare favorably with a squad like the Nets, the Wizards, or the Nuggets -- that was getting embarassing for you).

[quote=da_suns_fan__]Why penalize Dallas for losing in the first round while attempting to gage team success when that doesn't support your argument, right?[/quopte]

I'd penalize Dallas if that was the point I was trying to make. It's not.

A lot of conspiracy theorists do this. They pick a theory and throw out all data that doesn't support that theory!

What data have I thrown out? The Suns have played 4 series in the last 3 seasons against teams that won 50+ games in the regular season. They've won 1 of those series.

I've compared other teams to the Suns on exactly that basis and demonstrated that teams that have had even a modi of playoff success in the recent past have done as well or better than the Suns in competing against teams that won 50 games in the regular season.

And I've got no idea what conspiracy I'm supporting anyway. My theory is that the Suns haven't beaten quality teams at playoff time. Are you saying that my argument is refutable? Of course not -- since the facts bear me out. That's true whether I consider the Suns in isolation (they're 1-3 against teams that won 50+ games) or in comparison to other similarly-situated clubs (they've had the least success against quality teams among all franchises that have played in 6 or more playoff series).

Who's next?

I'm sure, for me, that it will be you. I'll try to find some time today to deal with whatever nonsensical non-response you post to this.

[ambchang]

I just owned a TEAM of Texans!!!

FinDog, Im proud of you for not backpedalling and trying to come with new definitions for words like "past" etc. the way youve done in the past.

FROMWAYDOWNTOWN, youre definately no Hollinger. Your "analysis" was flawed in so many ways (as I proved) but you aren't enough of a man to just admit that it was STUPID! Your whole point was to try to judge team success over the past three years, but your arguments had so many holes Im guessing your hero is Michael Moore. Why penalize Dallas for losing in the first round while attempting to gage team success when that doesn't support your argument, right?

A lot of conspiracy theorists do this. They pick a theory and throw out all data that doesn't support that theory!

Nice try Texas. Who's next?

Did someone just use Hollinger as the benchmark of statistical analysis in basketball?

Why won't you come up with a solid argument as to which team was better? How about head to head records? les won? Playoff records?

Oh wait, you did, you used perceived popularity.

Wow, you really owned somebody with your unbiased objective “arguments”.

[timmy21_4rings]

This thread is making my head hurt.

I'm still trying to discipher the irony of Spurs fans complaining incessantly about how narrow-minded and annoying the Suns and their fans are, yet continue to make childish threads with les like "all Suns have done is win series against LA teams."

Is it guilt? Anger? Self-doubt? Small syndrome? Small market syndrome? I can't comprehend it right now, but hopefully we'll all find out sometime.

It is not guilt or anger. It is simple truth for the Suns fans that still believe Suns would have won it all if not for David Stern or the greed ref.

[da_suns_fan__]

]Yeah, except that wasn't my whole point. My whole point was to demonstrate that when it comes to beating quality teams in the playoffs, Phoenix has failed. [/B] In fact, my last post specifically said:



Rather than actually address my actual argument, you change it to meet your own needs and then try to blow down the strawman you've set up for yourself. Again, though, the problem there is that you're making an argument for me that I never made for myself.

If anything the very nature of my analysis already admits that the Suns have had playoff success in the recent past -- in fact, I admitted that only 2 franchises have participated in more playoff series than the Suns since 2005 -- the number of series a club plays would seem to be indicative of playoff success, after all:



The problem remains, however, that the Suns' playoff "successes" are built almost entirely on a foundation of defeating lesser teams, since they are, after 1-3 against teams that won 50+ games in the regular season. And that, after all, is my point.

Show me that the Suns' playoff successes have come against quality teams at playoff time -- teams that won 50+ games in the regular season, for instance -- and you might have a point.

The problem, of course, is that you can't make that argument.

(I'm glad, for your sake, that you didn't waste a post trying to get me to admit that the Suns compare favorably with a squad like the Nets, the Wizards, or the Nuggets -- that was getting embarassing for you).



What data have I thrown out? The Suns have played 4 series in the last 3 seasons against teams that won 50+ games in the regular season. They've won 1 of those series.

I've compared other teams to the Suns on exactly that basis and demonstrated that teams that have had even a modi of playoff success in the recent past have done as well or better than the Suns in competing against teams that won 50 games in the regular season.

And I've got no idea what conspiracy I'm supporting anyway. My theory is that the Suns haven't beaten quality teams at playoff time. Are you saying that my argument is refutable? Of course not -- since the facts bear me out. That's true whether I consider the Suns in isolation (they're 1-3 against teams that won 50+ games) or in comparison to other similarly-situated clubs (they've had the least success against quality teams among all franchises that have played in 6 or more playoff series).



I'm sure, for me, that it will be you. I'll try to find some time today to deal with whatever nonsensical non-response you post to this.

Good lord...youre an embarrassment to yourself. You NOW say your whole point was to point out that the Suns haven't beaten many teams that won 50+ games.

Get ready to be owned buddy:

Why the , then, did you make A COMPARISON with 5 other teams if all you were trying to prove was that the Suns haven't fared well against teams who have won 50+ games? Why didn't you just show the record against other teams who have won fifty games? Why bother looking up ALL those teams' records if thats all you were trying to prove?

You tried to get CUTE, but I completely shredded your analysis. Again, its better to lose in the first round than to win in the in the first round and lose to a better team in the second round based off your criteria. Its got "BCS" written all over it.

Man up, buddy. You just got owned!

[Findog]

Good lord...youre an embarrassment to yourself. You NOW say your whole point was to point out that the Suns haven't beaten many teams that won 50+ games.

Get ready to be owned buddy:

Why the , then, did you make A COMPARISON with 5 other teams if all you were trying to prove was that the Suns haven't fared well against teams who have won 50+ games? Why didn't you just show the record against other teams who have won fifty games? Why bother looking up ALL those teams' records if thats all you were trying to prove?

You tried to get CUTE, but I completely shredded your analysis. Again, its better to lose in the first round than to win in the in the first round and lose to a better team in the second round based off your criteria. Its got "BCS" written all over it.

Man up, buddy. You just got owned!

Get some professional help. Seriously.

[monosylab1k]

I just got owned!

debating da_suns_fan is exactly like fighting Glass Joe - it's impossible to lose.

Except in this case, after getting knocked out for the 20th time, Glass Joe gets up again and claims sweet delusional victory in his punch-drunk stupor.

[FromWayDowntown]

You NOW say your whole point was to point out that the Suns haven't beaten many teams that won 50+ games.

No -- actually I said that in my first post dealing with this subject (I had an earlier post giving props to JMark for at least discussing the subject without launching into a series of insults against Spurs fans). Since you don't apparently bother to read anything, I'll make it easy for you and quote myself from the very post that has led to your futile attempts to ignore the truth of my argument.

Back in post #47, I wrote:

all the Suns did in the past 2 years was to win series against teams that failed to win at least 50 games in the regular season.

Despite your attempts to change my argument for me, I've remained constant in my point that the Suns have struggled mightily against quality teams at playoff time.

Get ready to be owned buddy:

Do you have some premonition that a poster who is actually smart might actually address my real argument and prove me wrong? Because other than some dude trying to change my argument to meet his own ends -- and failing mightily at it (that Jazz thing you brought up was about the worst kind of self-ownership) -- I haven't seen anyone try to refute my conclusion.

Why the , then, did you make A COMPARISON with 5 other teams if all you were trying to prove was that the Suns haven't fared well against teams who have won 50+ games? Why didn't you just show the record against other teams who have won fifty games? Why bother looking up ALL those teams' records if thats all you were trying to prove?

Because saying the Suns are 1-3 against teams that won 50+ games in the regular season doesn't mean all that much if it turns out that other "elite" teams are also losing to opponents who won 50+ games in the regular season. The point of the comparison, therefore, was to establish that among teams that have played the most playoff series since 2005, the Suns have the worst record against quality playoff opponents. Again, this is a simple point of argumentative logic; as such, it comes as little surprise that the point of the comparison has completely eluded you.

You tried to get CUTE, but I completely shredded your analysis.

If by "completely shredded your analysis," you meant "I completely changed your analysis to set up a strawman because I couldn't deal with the facts that you proved," then yes, you completely shredded my analysis. Of course, in real fact, you've still not dealt at all with my facts, choosing instead to present a series of non-sequiturs while falling all over yourself with self-praise.

Again, its better to lose in the first round than to win in the in the first round and lose to a better team in the second round based off your criteria.

Again, that's not my argument.

But if you choose to content yourself with the idea that dispatching teams that won less than 50 games in the regular season (i.e., teams that won less than 60% of their regular season games) and believe that advancing through the playoffs on the backs of weaker opponents while falling away at the first sign of a quality team is a definition of great playoff success, I guess I'm left to simply applaud you for finding an efficient means to delude yourself.

Man up, buddy. You just got owned!

Was that in some other thread? I sure haven't seen it here . . . .

[anakha]

Good lord...youre an embarrassment to yourself. You NOW say your whole point was to point out that the Suns haven't beaten many teams that won 50+ games.

Get ready to be owned buddy:

Why the , then, did you make A COMPARISON with 5 other teams if all you were trying to prove was that the Suns haven't fared well against teams who have won 50+ games? Why didn't you just show the record against other teams who have won fifty games? Why bother looking up ALL those teams' records if thats all you were trying to prove?

You tried to get CUTE, but I completely shredded your analysis. Again, its better to lose in the first round than to win in the in the first round and lose to a better team in the second round based off your criteria. Its got "BCS" written all over it.

Man up, buddy. You just got owned!

Last time I saw an 'analyst' this delusional, he was spouting bits of useless trivia about Argentina during the USA-Argentina FIBA broadcast.

Oh yeah, 'buddy', keep loudly proclaiming that you just owned someone. Pehaps in a decade's time, someone might be stupid or gullible enough to believe you.

[Findog]

debating da_suns_fan is exactly like fighting Glass Joe - it's impossible to lose.

Except in this case, after getting knocked out for the 20th time, Glass Joe gets up again and claims sweet delusional victory in his punch-drunk stupor.

Debating da_suns_fan is like debating George W. Bush. , maybe for a bizarro thread, I'll argue a pro-Suns, anti-Mavs, anti-Spurs point of view and still kick his ass.

[monosylab1k]

Debating da_suns_fan is like debating George W. Bush. , maybe for a bizarro thread, I'll argue a pro-Suns, anti-Mavs, anti-Spurs point of view and still kick his ass.

i'm sure you could come up with something a little more substantial than "Scoop Jackson & Bill Simmons like the Suns! They Do They Do! Eva!"

[Mister Sinister]

Christ. I go to sleep and d_s_f is still embarassing himself.

[anakha]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 9 (8 members and 1 guests)

anakha, ShagiaFrost, monosylab1k, da_suns_fan__, Findog, phyzik, Spurs1234, Louae

Oh yeah, let the good times roll...

[Mister Sinister]

I *knew* there was a reason I got out of bed this morning.

[Findog]

i'm sure you could come up with something a little more substantial than "Scoop Jackson & Bill Simmons like the Suns! They Do They Do! Eva!"

Remember, Jack McCallum wrote a book about the Suns and how they're changing the NBA. I've never heard of Run TMC or Showtime.

[Mister Sinister]

Remember, Jack McCallum wrote a book about the Suns and how they're changing the NBA. I've never heard of Run TMC or Showtime.

You fool! Run TMC is a hip-hop group and Showtime is a movie channel!

[phyzik]

this thread is Pure Entertainment, keep it up for 13 more days please.

[Findog]

You fool! Run TMC is a hip-hop group and Showtime is a movie channel!

Before Mike D'Antoni and Steve Nash came on the scene, the NBA still used peach baskets and once a team got a lead, they would pass the ball back and forth in a game of keepaway since the shot clock had not yet been invented.

D'Antoni will go down in basketball history as a revolutionary who pioneered many needed changes in rules and strategery.

[da_suns_fan_]

Eva Eva Eva! Eva! Eva Eva Eva Eva Eva Eva Eva! Eva Eva Scoop Jackson! Eva! Eva Eva Eva Eva Eva Eva Eva! Bill Simmons Eva Eva! Eva! Eva! Eva Eva Eva! I Win Argument! Eva!

[da_suns_fan__]

No -- actually I said that in my first post dealing with this subject (I had an earlier post giving props to JMark for at least discussing the subject without launching into a series of insults against Spurs fans). Since you don't apparently bother to read anything, I'll make it easy for you and quote myself from the very post that has led to your futile attempts to ignore the truth of my argument.

Back in post #47, I wrote:



Despite your attempts to change my argument for me, I've remained constant in my point that the Suns have struggled mightily against quality teams at playoff time.



Do you have some premonition that a poster who is actually smart might actually address my real argument and prove me wrong? Because other than some dude trying to change my argument to meet his own ends -- and failing mightily at it (that Jazz thing you brought up was about the worst kind of self-ownership) -- I haven't seen anyone try to refute my conclusion.



Because saying the Suns are 1-3 against teams that won 50+ games in the regular season doesn't mean all that much if it turns out that other "elite" teams are also losing to opponents who won 50+ games in the regular season. The point of the comparison, therefore, was to establish that among teams that have played the most playoff series since 2005, the Suns have the worst record against quality playoff opponents. Again, this is a simple point of argumentative logic; as such, it comes as little surprise that the point of the comparison has completely eluded you.



If by "completely shredded your analysis," you meant "I completely changed your analysis to set up a strawman because I couldn't deal with the facts that you proved," then yes, you completely shredded my analysis. Of course, in real fact, you've still not dealt at all with my facts, choosing instead to present a series of non-sequiturs while falling all over yourself with self-praise.



Again, that's not my argument.

But if you choose to content yourself with the idea that dispatching teams that won less than 50 games in the regular season (i.e., teams that won less than 60% of their regular season games) and believe that advancing through the playoffs on the backs of weaker opponents while falling away at the first sign of a quality team is a definition of great playoff success, I guess I'm left to simply applaud you for finding an efficient means to delude yourself.



Was that in some other thread? I sure haven't seen it here . . . .

I've ALREADY shredded this argument. Youre right, some teams don't lose to 50+ win teams in the playoffs...they lost to teams who DIDN'T win 50+ games in the playoffs .

All you've proven is that the Suns don't lose to crappy teams, while others do (or are a crappy team themselves)! Not to mention that the only series that "count" for the Suns are against San Antonio and Dallas. Cleveland and Detroit have never won a series against San Antonio or Dallas. Miami is UNDEFEATED!

Your too slow to understand the "conspiracy theroist" analogy ("what conspiracy?"), but my point is this: You modify your parameters and criteria in order to produce a list that puts the Suns in last place. Any data that doesn't support your argument is thrown out.

Whats the Suns record since Nash arrived against teams that won 50+ games? The OWN Miami and Cleveland. They have a winning record against the Mavericks (which drives them NUTS).

Like I proved with my "records against western teams who have been to the finals" in which the Spurs were in last place, anyone can do this with any team.

Unlike myself, Texans are too slow to see right through you!

Game ing over. I win.