Reply With Quote
I wish I was, but then that statement implacable44 made was the same as all the statements he made in the past. Wrong.
Ray has won wherever he has been? I guess we just have different standards, because the almighty Ray Allen has LEAD his team to the PLAYOFFS a grand total of FOUR TIMES in NINE years. During that same time span, the Spurs won THREE championships. And has anybody complained about Tim not getting the spacing lately? Let me see, we have Manu, Bowen (he did lead the league in 3pt shooting once), Brent Barry, Horry, Finley and Van Exel, and with, hopefully, an improving Parker, there would be a whole legion of shooters. Hey, why bring in somebody to shoot at $15 mil, when you can do that with $3mil? Which reminds me, how would the salary cap work in your little trade scenario?
I guess that is how Bowen led the league in 3pt shooting in 2003 and shot 40.3% last year. My goodness, thanks for forcing me to point it out to you, Ray Allen actually shot WORSE than Bowen from behind the arc last year. Granted he was the focus of the offense and blah blah blah, but I guess Bowen's accuracy is actually helping Tim.
BTW, how would Bowen shooting better from the line help with the Spurs spacing on offense again?
We just signed Barry last year to be the shooter. If a shooter is all you want, then sign Damon Jones, trade for Kyle Korver, both of who are great shooters, and make SIGNIFICANTLY less. Why Ray Allen? Will Allen bring a different dimension of shooting to the team?
Hmm ... I guess that's why Bowen shut down Billups at the end of Game 5 instead of Manu and Parker. Now we will have Ray Allen instead of Bruce, instead of cloning Manu, so how again would the defense stay the same? We subsitute Manu for Bowen, and then Ray for Manu? Down grades in both instances, and then what do we do, throw in a few toads eye and lizard tongues, and suddenly, the Spurs defense will be just as good as before?
How did you address the void? By saying "I don't think so"? Holy freaking crap! You said it so it must be true. Bruce was on the all defensive team 5 times (thrice 2nd team, twice first team), and Ray has been there ZERO times. Oh yeah, Manu will be there to fill the void. Let's just ASSUME Manu is just as good as Bowen on defense (which we all know is not true, that's why Manu didn't finish #2 in DPoY last year with the same help defense, but let's just assume, and make it even easier for you), then who is going to take Manu's defense? Ray Allen? Or do you expect Manu to cover two perimeter players at the same time?
Did I ever say great players make bad coaches? You stated the ability to bust somebody's ass = great basketball mind. You indicated that the relationship is causal I just showed that there is no correlation between the two. I suppose you are only a basketball God, not an IQ or logic God.
In the meantime, read up on this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates
I wish I was, but then that statement implacable44 made was the same as all the statements he made in the past. Wrong.
you read about Socrates so you are an intellectual icon ? I graduated law school in the top 10% does that make me more intelligent that joe smith or john smith ? You are a philosopher huh ? so philosophise - opine and make it your own - I don't need to regurgitate philosophy and theology to feel smarter or read a Socrates web site - my foundation is faith based anyway not so much on theology. thanks for the referrence though but I am already familiar.
Ray wins games. Ray is a top player in the NBA and these are all my opinions. The Spurs won three championships - not because of BRuce Bowen. Yes I know of several people who complained - TIm was not the most effective player on the offensive end last year - especially against Detroit in the playoffs because they could afford to cheat off of BRuce and double the post - hence turnovers and poor shooting percentages for Tim. Ray Allen is a legitimate scoring threat anytime he touches the ball. Bruce was 20th last year with 253 attempts - Ray Allen had more than twice that amount and he actually had people guarding him when he shot the ball. Bruces shots - all of them - are wide open -- wide wide open. he should be shooting 60%.
parker cannot shoot. and again my ray allen comment was a hypothetical for me - an opinion and ray was unsigned so it could have worked under the salary cap.
Bowen led the league in 3 point shooting in 2003 ? are you talking percentage when he put up 229 ? You know there is a reason bruce doesnt get invited to the all-star game for the 3-point shoot out?
downgrade? are you high ? manu and ray is a far better backcourt than manu and bowen - but whatever - - let me clue you in on the defense - the defense is successful because of TD and the help man they play at San Antonio but mostly because of TD. it is easier to play face-up man because when y ou get beat - you know you have help and you know that tim is at the basket waiting to block a shot or alter it. As far as defense- there are not too many folks in the league that go all out on the defensive end in the NBA and Ray can exert more than enough effort to play perimeter defense and funnel people into tim. - this is all hypothetical and you seem to be getting a little to involved - but that is probably because you cant play so you value your opinion. - you notice you are the only one claiming your opinion is fact - not me. I say it is my opinion and what I think not fact.
you implied great players make bad coaches - hence the isaiah thomas referrence etc. -
I've sat this one out but frankly this has gone on enough. Impy, you keep accusing people of regurgitating opinions because other people agree with them. There's a reason people agree with their ideas: THEY ARE GOOD IDEAS. There's a reason that your ideas seem so original on this board: ANYONE HERE WHO HAS THOUGHT THESE STUPID THOUGHTS WAS SMART ENOUGH TO KEEP QUIET ABOUT IT.
Watch the ing finals tape of Bowen on Billups and Hamilton. They were wearing him like a second skin and he was altering their shots all over the floor. Most of their offensive difficulties had nothing to do with Duncan because they weren't anywhere near the paint. Same deal with your boy Ray Allen and the Sonics. How many times go to the hoop versus how often he does his catch and shoot after going through 12 screens to get open? He's a perimeter scorer, Bowen made him work for every shot he got off. You and Spursdaone need to get together and start your own board for stupid trade ideas. Of course, if he had his way we would have shipped Bowen to the Rockets for Mike James, which is a marginally worse idea than yours.
you should have stayed in exile homie - your opinion means as much to me as mine does to you -the thing is my opinion of ray allen is just an opinion and you and your bootie partner get all hostile in defense of bruce bowen like you were his girl or something. - dude it is just an opinion - not a fact not anything other than what i have said it is from the beginning - an opinion. like i said - you should have kept sitting it out - nice use of vulgar language
Someone could equate your vehement defense for your opinion to the same way you are attacking others' opinions. You are right...they are just opinions, everyone is en led to them, whether we agree with them does not change that fact. Also just because someone disagrees or is of a different opinion doesn't mean they are any less knowledgable than another.
Now if we can talk hoops again...I will repost an earlier question to you....who do you send to Seattle for Ray Allen?
my point - i say it is an opinion and that is that.
well since I will get critiqued - let me look at salaries to match those - i dont want to get scrutinized
I agree with you....my point was that others have them as well and all should be respected if not neccessarily agreed with.my point - i say it is an opinion and that is that.
Good luck on the salaries...I am not sure it can work without getting rid of anyone named Duncan, Ginobili or Parker.
Last edited by samikeyp; 10-11-2005 at 02:49 PM.
Right, but you say it's an opinion, then call people names for expressing a view that is different than yours. If you want us to respect your opinion, you should be willing to debate it in civil terms and to back it up where you can. At the same time, you should also be willing to listen to those who are expressing a different view and debate that view as well. You choose, instead, to express an opinion, tell everyone not to question you (whether joking or not, it comes off as unreasonably arrogant), dismiss evidence that is contrary to your opinion, and then call people names when they don't agree with you. This "it's just an opinion" stuff is a fairly recent event from you in this thread.
By the way, you might mix in some punctuation like a normal writer at some point. It would be much easier to understand what your arguments are if they can be read without the need for translation. (I would think that would be self-evident to a top 10% law school graduate, since effective communication is vital to a good lawyer, whether he practices or not).
It is a message board dude. If you want to get into semantics and correct English then we can break down anyone on this board for their posting ( i.e. your lack of commas and use of double negatives- but then maybe that is acceptable for whatever profession you might be in). The least of my worries during the day is my spelling and punctuation on a basketball message board. Are you seriously pointing the finger at me for name calling etc? - well you do see those other 3 fingers staring you in the face right ? I responded - all I have done since I posted this is respond to people - you included and I am more than able to carry on any sort of conversation with anyone. Problem is - everything said on here is an opinion. We are talking about basketball - a game - and how it is played and who plays it better which will always be a matter of opinion. Get a group of 10 guys together and ask them who is the greatest and you will probably get 10 different answers. All your statistics ( manipulated and distorted for your benefit) mean nothing at the end of the day because we are talking about opinions.
The statistics were made to prove that Bowen is one of the premier defensive players in the league as FACT. Statistics don't lie, and if they can be manipulated as you seem to think, find some statistics that prove otherwise.
True enough. But if you want to be understood, particularly if you choose to be prolific in your comments, correct grammar is a significant step towards accomplishing that goal.
If it will placate you, I'll double-check my grammar.
I wondered aloud about the source from you which formulate your opinions, since you express such utter disdain for the observations and statistical analyses set forth by other posters. In my experience, such a myopic view of the game is the product of concerning oneself with who ends up in highlights and other such nonsense. You explained that I was wrong in my assessment. I should have immediately apologized for the implication. Lest I make the same mistake twice, you have my apology for such a crass generalization.
That doesn't change the fact that you continue to call people names simply because they express views that are contrary to yours.
Why is it that your opinion is somehow superior to anyone else's? Why is anyone's disagreement with your opinion evidence that they are intellectually inferior to you or worthy of being called names? That has been the clear implication of your posts since this thread's inception.
Says you. Statistics are, inherently, a means for justifying or corroborating observations and resultant opinions. Certainly, there are things that cannot be measured. But, there are also things that can. When debating athletes, statistical proof tends to be among the better measures for assessing quality. You, however, appear to fundamentally reject the notion that an opinion can be supported by objective statistical proof, choosing instead to rely on your wholly subjective observations. If you choose that method of analysis, so be it. But your choice does not render the rest of us ignorant for finding objective statistical data that suggests your view is, at the very least, questionable.
I'm all about a good debate and am interested in reading the reasoning of those who disagree with me. But I (among others around here) don't have much patience with those who are unwilling to indulge a bilateral discussion.
^ Well put. Say, I need a lawyer, are you available?
Always . . . . for a price.^ Well put. Say, I need a lawyer, are you available?
Of course my opinion is of more value to me than yours is. I don't know you nor am I aware of any credentials that you might possess. I played D1 college ball and that is my experience. Value ? debatable - but for me, well I am comfortable in my basketball knowledge. It is easy to look up statistics and say he shot x% against Bowen and against the rest of the league he shot y% so Bowen is the man. He isn't facing just Bowen though - he might have shot 10 for 29 for the game but how many shots came against Bowen ? How many were over Tim on the drive or on a switch with Parker guarding him ? What is he shot z% against Steve Nash and that percentage (z) was worse than what he shot against Bruce Bowen - well is Nash a better defender than Bowen ? Well of course not but the statistics say something else. There is far too much going on in the game of basketball that are not measured by statistics. The pass that leads to the assist. The deflected ball that leads to the steal - the help defense that leads to the missed shot or turnover. - I would recommend you double check your grammar because your mix of verb usage is off quite a bit and since you have chosen to set a standard for prolific use of the English language I will take liberty with your errors going forward, i.e. : such comments like this : "I wondered aloud about the source from you which formulate your opinions" which makes no sense and is poorly structured.
I do not pretend that my opinion is superior to anyones and I have not called anyone a name save they did so first. Even for my reactions I apologize.
I'm not asking that you accept my opinion as your own. All I ask is that you consider and respect my opinion (or the opinions of others) when those opinions are presented with evidence.
You can disagree, but disagreement is completely different than utter disdain.
You're right -- statistics are not perfect. I was pretty sure that we had already established that. Nevertheless, I don't think it's fair to just simply throw them out the window.
If Kobe Bryant takes 30 shots to score 30 points, he's been inefficient offensively. Now, who gets credit for that inefficiency is, to a degree at least, a matter of subjective interpretation. But if Kobe and Bruce Bowen are on the floor together and if Bruce Bowen is defending Kobe Bryant and if those who observe the game note that Kobe only got free from Bruce on a handful of possessions, then it's fair to use the statistics to conclude that Bruce Bowen was relatively successful in his efforts to defend Kobe Bryant.
The same is true of observations concerning any number of other players who've found themselves defended by Bruce Bowen.
The point is that the combination of pure statistics and observations lends credence to the hypothesis that Bruce Bowen is among the very best perimeter defenders in the game. It lends more analytical credence to that point than vaguely referring to comments from guys you claim to have played pickup basketball against. And it is more likely to be accurate than your subjective observations, which are jaded by your pre-assessment that Bruce Bowen is an average defender.
I agree. But that doesn't make statistics useless. It just means that statistics should be used carefully.
The converse of your point is precisely why I disagree with your observations about Jerome James. In an earlier post, you suggest that we all knew that James was better than Nesterovic that night James was beating up the Spurs. But on that night, there was nothing about James' production that had anything to do with Jerome James. He made 7 dunks and all of them were the result of the Sonics' effective screen-roll game. Should I look at James going 7-for-7 and conclude that he's a center who will shoot a high percentage and dominate in the post? Not based on what actually happened on the floor that night. But your view doesn't account for what was actually happening -- it's based solely upon the results, which, again, had very little to do with Jerome James.
My ass you haven't. This is from your second post, directed at either SolidD or ambchang, who had done nothing other than question your viewpoint:
I'm certain that I could find plenty of similar posts.
^ Implacable 44, you've just been OWNED. How does it feel?
i have been owned? what are you smoking - ? we are talking opinions here and you chime in with you have been owned? I doubt you own anything and nobody owns me. he has a different opinion than i do. if you would like to discuss anything of revelance let me know but if all you can bring to the table is you have been owned than it is best for you to leave this to grown folks
read the prior posts before i made that comment.
^ Already did chief, and if you've spent any time around this forum, you would know what I'm talking about, I know some of the other posters do. Trust me my simple friend, you've been OWNED. Don't feel too bad, you're not the first.
I44, You obviously know the game and no one is debating how much you know or don't know but you tell people that "I can bust your ass" or say that you are better than someone on the court when you don't even know how good that person might be. You also say that because someone didn't play the game that their opinion is worthless and because you did, yours is more valid. You call people out like that...they are going to react accordingly...wouldn't you? You make statements like that, then when people react, as they are going to do, you jump behind the "its my opinion" or "its a joke" card. You said it yourself...its hard to tell in a post. (actually you said email) No one is saying you can't have an opinion or that your opinion sucks. Personally I respect your opinions, I just haven't always agreed. Just because I don't agree doesn't make me any less knowledgable about the game...as you have said, its an opinion. You will find that a lot of the posters here are very well versed in the all phases of the game, the business side as well as the playing side. I am not saying you don't know the game, but we have a lot of smart people here as well. You could probably learn something from them and vice versa.
Reading on Socrates = intellectual icon? Man, I suppose they don't make law students like they do, that's the BASIS of logic, I mean, people learn that stuff in Grade 9, and it's making people into an intellectual icon in your book? And yeah, why let the simple concept of the following cloud you.
You assert that good player = good basketball mind.
I came up with Isiah Thomas, Elgin Baylor and Magic Johnson to refute that point.
You somehow think that I imply good basketball makes terrible GMs/coaches, while my simple example was to illustrate that good player does not make good basketball mind.
Is it so hard to grasp? Mr. Lawyer. I mean, how do you argue in court without the use of logic? I would love to see it.
Let me draw up a simple example.
Person A asserted the invention of TV led to violence. Person B pointed out that violence was present prior to the invention of TV. Person A somehow think that Person B is implying the invention of TV stopped all violence, and thus say that violence is still present AFTER the invention of TV, and thus proving his original point.
See how stupid Person A is now?
Could you find me ONE player who EVER shot 60% from 3pt line, ever? Or do you think sharp eye shooters like Steve Kerr, John Paxson et all all we doubled teammed throughout their career?
And yeah, don't let common sense and facts get in the way of your opinion. It doesn't matter that Ray Allen only got in the playoffs 4 times in his 9 year career (that is finishing worse than 16 out of 30 teams, or even 29 teams earlier on his career), which means that his teams finished in the bottom half of the league a majority of his career. But no, don't let that come between your opinion that he is a winner.
I don't know how the Spurs would have done without Bowen, all I know is that Billups was tearing the Spurs apart in the Finals until Bowen was on him, and then, for some magical reasons, he couldn't score.
Bowen led the league in 3pt %? Didn't he? http://www.basketball-reference.com/...bowenbr01.html
Oh no, I just stated out facts, and since that's regurgitation of real life situations, it MUST be wrong according to you. For me to look smart, I will have to say that it is not the case, and that Bowen never led the league in 3 pt shooting. That will make me more intelligent.
So you can just plug any Joe Schmoe in the Spurs system and it will work? I suppose that is exactly why Bowen made the AllD team last year, while Manu, Parker, Barry et all didn't. What about Miami? How did that happen? How did Bowen make that All-D team? By having Anthony Mason covering his back?
Read above, and you reading up Socrates is just to get the basics.
Last edited by ambchang; 10-11-2005 at 06:20 PM.
In the immortal words of Socrates...."I drank what?"
[SARCASM] You watched the tape and concluded what everybody else concluded? You are just regurgitating the facts. You are a tool. [/SARCASM]
I must say, samikeyp, you are one nice guy.
I am just worried that the day I need legal representation, I would be hiring a top 10% law student, and said lawyer can't even understand the fact that opinions with nothing to back up carries no weight.
Prosecutor: I understand that in the night of crime, the defendant was seen at the crime of the scene, blah blah blah.
Defendant: It is my opinion that it doesn't matter. My client is innocent.
thanks man, just giving my .02 on the whole thing.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions