PDA

View Full Version : What is the greatest NBA Debate?



Chronz
02-07-2013, 07:41 PM
Discuss....

OceanSpray
02-07-2013, 08:04 PM
LeBron vs Kobe. I wouldn't call it a debate.. We all know who the better player is.

seikou8
02-07-2013, 08:06 PM
LeBron vs Kobe. I wouldn't call it a debate.. We all know who the better player is.

omg here we go are you the biggest lebron fan or what

LoveMeOrHateMe
02-07-2013, 08:07 PM
Kobe vs lebron
Kobe vs Jordan
Lakers vs celtics
Etc. every week we have one of these threads

OceanSpray
02-07-2013, 08:09 PM
omg here we go are you the biggest lebron fan or what

Are you angry NYK never win at anything? He asked for a debate and it's clear Kobe vs LeBron is the biggest topic. Unless you have one yourself, stop trolling.

seikou8
02-07-2013, 08:14 PM
Are you angry NYK never win at anything? He asked for a debate and it's clear Kobe vs LeBron is the biggest topic. Unless you have one yourself, stop trolling.

nobody is mad just tired of kobe vs lebron every thread here it is lebron is better now but has not surpass on alll time ranking in my mind.i think alltime ranking is big debate

NYKNYGNYY
02-07-2013, 08:35 PM
Bot the biggest but the dream team vs the USA team

koreancabbage
02-07-2013, 08:42 PM
________(insert name) vs Michael Jordan

or who is the next Jordan?

mdm692
02-07-2013, 08:42 PM
Present debate is "who can dethrone the Heat?". Of all time it's gotta be Jordan vs Kobe.

Hawkeye15
02-07-2013, 08:45 PM
The top 10 discussion is big. Which teams were THE best, discussion amongst era's, and trying to point out the differences, both positive and negative.

My favorites are the ones that are of players retired, because young, idiotic homers don't take the conversation over.

Hawkeye15
02-07-2013, 08:45 PM
Present debate is "who can dethrone the Heat?". Of all time it's gotta be Jordan vs Kobe.

That isn't even a real debate...

mdm692
02-07-2013, 08:48 PM
That isn't even a real debate...

A lot of people seem to think it is, the majority being Lakers fans of course, but prime Jordan vs prime Kobe never ends up pretty.

STA_PLAR
02-07-2013, 08:59 PM
PLease be reasonable lol.

Hawkeye15
02-07-2013, 09:05 PM
A lot of people seem to think it is, the majority being Lakers fans of course, but prime Jordan vs prime Kobe never ends up pretty.

well, it isn't pretty, its very one sided..

mdm692
02-07-2013, 09:08 PM
well, it isn't pretty, its very one sided..

In your eyes maybe but obviously you haven't met much Lakers fans aside from PSD.

Sactown
02-07-2013, 09:09 PM
Most dominate force ever?
Shaq?
Kobe?
Bill Russell has 13 rings!

Hawkeye15
02-07-2013, 09:10 PM
A lot of people seem to think it is, the majority being Lakers fans of course, but prime Jordan vs prime Kobe never ends up pretty.

well, it isn't pretty, its very one sided..

Sactown
02-07-2013, 09:10 PM
The top 10 discussion is big. Which teams were THE best, discussion amongst era's, and trying to point out the differences, both positive and negative.

My favorites are the ones that are of players retired, because young, idiotic homers don't take the conversation over.

Someone didn't get laid last night....

Hawkeye15
02-07-2013, 09:13 PM
Someone didn't get laid last night....

oh contraire my friend...

Sactown
02-07-2013, 09:15 PM
oh contraire my friend...

Oh ****, well that makes one of us :(

Chronz
02-07-2013, 09:18 PM
It can't be a public wide debate if there is a wide consensus

Hawkeye15
02-07-2013, 09:43 PM
It can't be a public wide debate if there is a wide consensus

very true. Ok, how about this one?

Would Hakeem have a ring if MJ hadn't retired?

JLynn943
02-07-2013, 09:45 PM
Could be how to compare players across eras (or whether we can even do that at all). Adjusting for pace helps, but it isn't enough. There are other factors such as rules, the quality of opponents, etc. Yet, people do it all the time anyway.

Kashmir13579
02-07-2013, 09:47 PM
Bird or Magic

Hawkeye15
02-07-2013, 09:49 PM
Bird or Magic

Magic :)

tredigs
02-07-2013, 09:55 PM
Bird or Magic

Ding.

Wilt / Russell as the old school version of that one, and an ancillary to that just being "greatest center of all time".

And just stop with the "Kobe Jordan", the only reason there is argument surrounding this is because it causes such hilarious disdain that it is mentioned so often. It's not just Lakers fans fault either, I blame much of it on the fact that the media loves to drum it up - they're as much a troll as anyone else. There was a real, true argument with Bird and Magic, that is in no way the case with Jordan/Kobe. These are not arguments, they're beatings - but certainly the biggest troll argument of all time.

JasonJohnHorn
02-07-2013, 11:51 PM
For those who said the LBJ vs. Kobe, it isn't a debate. LBJ is clearly better.
Those who said Jordan vs. Kobe, again, Jordan is CLEARLY better. It isn't even a conversation.

The biggest debates for me is who the best center is or who the best player all time is.

Akagaminosteven
02-08-2013, 12:06 AM
Greg Oden's penis vs. Bynum's hair.

jayjay33
02-08-2013, 01:51 AM
By far the biggest debate an it's not even close is.......how good is/was Kobe.

Every other thread In one from or another is about how good was Kobe. Was he better than this guy, was he better than that guy. Could he have done this, could he have done that. Did he earn his rings or did shaq carry him......etc.

OceanSpray
02-08-2013, 01:55 AM
nobody is mad just tired of kobe vs lebron every thread here it is lebron is better now but has not surpass on alll time ranking in my mind.i think alltime ranking is big debate

Read the question and hit backspace for realizing your stupidity.

smith&wesson
02-08-2013, 02:10 AM
Who is the greates C of all time ? Kareem,Shaquille,Russell,Hakeem,Chamberlain,Moses, etc.. It's always been the hardest question for me to answer ..

Greates pg = magic
Greats sg = Jordan
Greates sf = James/bird
Greates pf = Duncan
Greates C = no clue

smith&wesson
02-08-2013, 02:12 AM
It can't be a public wide debate if there is a wide consensus

Give me your best players at each position bet you will struggle with C the most.

smith&wesson
02-08-2013, 02:14 AM
Magic :)

Bird or James ? For best sf all time

Sadds The Gr8
02-08-2013, 02:16 AM
Shaq & Kobe's Lakers vs Jordan & Pippen's 1st 3peat Bulls

Hawkeye15
02-08-2013, 02:18 AM
Bird or James ? For best sf all time

great debate right now, will end up an easy call.

smith&wesson
02-08-2013, 02:19 AM
Shaq & Kobe's Lakers vs Jordan & Pippen's 1st 3peat Bulls

Jordan and the bulls...

Shaq, Kobe & the lakers self destructed where as Jordan and the bulls were a fine tuned machine.

smith&wesson
02-08-2013, 02:20 AM
great debate right now, will end up an easy call.

I'm already calling James ..

Sadds The Gr8
02-08-2013, 02:37 AM
Jordan and the bulls...

Shaq, Kobe & the lakers self destructed where as Jordan and the bulls were a fine tuned machine.

are u talking about just picking which one you think is better over the span of the 3peats? or talking about a 7 game series? Cuz I'm talking about a 7 game series.

1991 Bulls vs 2000 Lakers...who do you think wins?

OceanSpray
02-08-2013, 02:40 AM
2000 LAL would destroy 1991 Bulls. Of course, pure speculation. I don't think anyone, except Hakeem, had a chance at Shaq.

smith&wesson
02-08-2013, 02:54 AM
are u talking about just picking which one you think is better over the span of the 3peats? or talking about a 7 game series? Cuz I'm talking about a 7 game series.

1991 Bulls vs 2000 Lakers...who do you think wins?

Even then I think Kobe and Shaq were more keen to buckle in the face of adversity

Edit: Actually.. I'll go with the 2000 lakers, 91 bulls line up looks kinda thin lol

Im_in_Mia_bish
02-08-2013, 02:55 AM
magic/bird.

asandhu23
02-08-2013, 03:24 AM
People always forget Rick Barry.

OceanSpray
02-08-2013, 03:39 AM
Even then I think Kobe and Shaq were more keen to buckle in the face of adversity

Edit: Actually.. I'll go with the 2000 lakers, 91 bulls line up looks kinda thin lol

Yes, back then the physique of players were all skinny.. Stockton would never be able to handle Westbrook.

Hawkize31
02-08-2013, 03:52 AM
My personal favorite is how much rings matter to player legacies. I say almost not at all, since it takes 12 players and a coaching/training staff to win a championship, and one man cant control all that. Barkley for example was one of the best basketball players ever and never won a title. Nash, same thing.

Other people think rings matter a ton and consider a guy like Kobe to be more legendary for winning it 5 times. No doubt, without Kobe they wouldn't have won 5 titles.

Pierzynski4Prez
02-08-2013, 12:58 PM
Best big man in history. Some greats to choose from, shaq, wilt, hakeem.

TheIlladelph16
02-08-2013, 02:01 PM
Current debate would have to be Kobe vs. Lebron (Better prime? Where do they end up all-time? etc.), but I like Hawkeye's Lebron vs. Bird debate as well.

The best all-time C is one I don't think I could make the call on. I would wanna say Shaq, but I'm too young to have seen guys like Kareem and Wilt/Russell so my opinion may not hold up.

ink
02-08-2013, 02:10 PM
That isn't even a real debate...

100% true.


Ding.

Wilt / Russell as the old school version of that one, and an ancillary to that just being "greatest center of all time".

And just stop with the "Kobe Jordan", the only reason there is argument surrounding this is because it causes such hilarious disdain that it is mentioned so often. It's not just Lakers fans fault either, I blame much of it on the fact that the media loves to drum it up - they're as much a troll as anyone else. There was a real, true argument with Bird and Magic, that is in no way the case with Jordan/Kobe. These are not arguments, they're beatings - but certainly the biggest troll argument of all time.

Have to agree with this.

And ... Magic.

ink
02-08-2013, 02:11 PM
Best big man in history. Some greats to choose from, shaq, wilt, hakeem.

This. But a difficult debate since so few have seen any bigs before Shaq.

Hawkeye15
02-08-2013, 06:41 PM
Current debate would have to be Kobe vs. Lebron (Better prime? Where do they end up all-time? etc.), but I like Hawkeye's Lebron vs. Bird debate as well.

The best all-time C is one I don't think I could make the call on. I would wanna say Shaq, but I'm too young to have seen guys like Kareem and Wilt/Russell so my opinion may not hold up.

I don't remember that debate haha, but I do think Bird versus LeBron is a good one. For now. Bird's short tenure all but kills his long term chances to hold LeBron from passing him.

Hawkeye15
02-08-2013, 06:41 PM
nm

Nats_vcu-Okc35
02-08-2013, 06:53 PM
I like bigs debate best, unfortunately, not relevant to todays nba. Best team is up there too. On the flip side, I think any overrated debate is the worst.

OceanSpray
02-08-2013, 06:59 PM
This. But a difficult debate since so few have seen any bigs before Shaq.

Not even close, Hakeem is the best big man. Could pass, defend, score over anyone, and the greatest moves ever.

JerseyPalahniuk
02-08-2013, 07:28 PM
Barkley vs Malone seem to be forgotten.

Jordan vs Lebron will be one after Lebron retires.

Nash vs Kidd?

TheNumber37
02-08-2013, 07:42 PM
Is it time to trade Kobe?

R. Johnson#3
02-08-2013, 07:47 PM
Karl Malone vs Tim Duncan. Who is better?

KnicksorBust
02-08-2013, 08:07 PM
Karl Malone vs Tim Duncan. Who is better?

It's not a debate. The overwhelming majority take Duncan. It gets messy ranking Mailman with KG/Barkley though.

Same thing with the centers.

It may not be an active debate but I've always wondered if Jordan would have been as successful with a HoF center instead of Pippen.

ThaDubs
02-08-2013, 08:15 PM
Not even close, Hakeem is the best big man. Could pass, defend, score over anyone, and the greatest moves ever.

Are you saying Shaq couldn't do all those things?

hidalgo
02-08-2013, 08:25 PM
Bulls dynasty vs the 80s Lakers or Celtics dynasty, etc

OceanSpray
02-08-2013, 08:51 PM
Are you saying Shaq couldn't do all those things?

Shaq wasn't an elite defender. Shaq did not have the greatest moves ever. The reason Shaq was unstoppable was due to the fact that he overpowered and was physically a gifted player. Hakeem isn't physically the greatest player. However, his footwork is the best, he is one of the greatest defenders in NBA history, and actually made free throws. Good shooter, good post player. There was nothing bad about Hakeem.

Verbal Christ
02-09-2013, 12:34 AM
who would have won a chicago/houston finals matchup in the mid 90's.

Nyc4You
02-09-2013, 12:42 AM
What if Len bias didn't pass away? Some people had him above Jordan, talent wise. Could he have been near Jordan's level?

Chronz
02-09-2013, 01:33 PM
Shaq wasn't an elite defender. Shaq did not have the greatest moves ever. The reason Shaq was unstoppable was due to the fact that he overpowered and was physically a gifted player. Hakeem isn't physically the greatest player. However, his footwork is the best, he is one of the greatest defenders in NBA history, and actually made free throws. Good shooter, good post player. There was nothing bad about Hakeem.

But Shaq was an elite defender and he did have great moves, moves made greater by his physical superiority, why would we ignore such an advantage?

Basically your argument boils down to this, if we ignore how much better Shaq was offensively and make up lies about him never being an elite defender and there being NOTHING bad about Hakeem, then yes, Hakeem is better. But thats not reality

Chronz
02-09-2013, 01:35 PM
Not even close, Hakeem is the best big man. Could pass, defend, score over anyone, and the greatest moves ever.
Hes not comparing anyone, so what do you mean by "not even close"?

If your saying its not even close to a debate then you should know your only 1 person, hes giving his opinion about what hes witnessed of people collectively.

DreamShaker
02-09-2013, 02:52 PM
How good Len Bias would have been, and how good that would have made the Celtics.

If older players could have played in the modern era (Russell, West, Hondo ect.)

If the Bulls would have beat the Rockets if MJ never left

DreamShaker
02-09-2013, 02:58 PM
What if Len bias didn't pass away? Some people had him above Jordan, talent wise. Could he have been near Jordan's level?

And him already stepping right into one of the greatest teams ever could have swung a few titles in the late 80's/early 90's. Who says Bird doesn't squeeze out a few more years with a young stud lessening his load?

OceanSpray
02-09-2013, 03:48 PM
Hes not comparing anyone, so what do you mean by "not even close"?

If your saying its not even close to a debate then you should know your only 1 person, hes giving his opinion about what hes witnessed of people collectively.

I hate your posts because it seems you can't comprehend what it really means.

He's asking which center is the best, which default, means he's comparing who the best center is because he can't decide who to put on his starting lineup.

Shaq wasn't an elite defender. You clearly don't know much of his game. He even admitted he wasn't a great defender. Defensive wise, Hakeem won 2 DPOY, Shaq has none. We're comparing who's the better defender and quite frankly, Shaq doesn't compare.

Offensively, Shaq just outpowered everyone. He relied more on his athleticism than actual moves, EG: Footwork. Since he's offensively better than Hakeem, can you give me ways Shaq could score besides posting up? All he could do was dunk and use the hook. He overpowered the opposing centers with his huge physique, that is how he got so close to the rim. Most dominating player doesn't mean he's the best offensive player. Understand the difference, please.

Hakeem could post, shoot the mid range, and hit free throws.

I don't know why you always quote my post with silly responses.

b@llhog24
02-09-2013, 04:55 PM
I hate your posts because it seems you can't comprehend what it really means.

He's asking which center is the best, which default, means he's comparing who the best center is because he can't decide who to put on his starting lineup.

Shaq wasn't an elite defender. You clearly don't know much of his game. He even admitted he wasn't a great defender. Defensive wise, Hakeem won 2 DPOY, Shaq has none. We're comparing who's the better defender and quite frankly, Shaq doesn't compare.

Offensively, Shaq just outpowered everyone. He relied more on his athleticism than actual moves, EG: Footwork. Since he's offensively better than Hakeem, can you give me ways Shaq could score besides posting up? All he could do was dunk and use the hook. He overpowered the opposing centers with his huge physique, that is how he got so close to the rim. Most dominating player doesn't mean he's the best offensive player. Understand the difference, please.

Hakeem could post, shoot the mid range, and hit free throws.

I don't know why you always quote my post with silly responses.

So did your earth god LeBron for a large portion of his career.

IndyRealist
02-09-2013, 07:33 PM
The biggest debate is and always will be whether hall of famers from 30 or 40 years ago could compete in today's NBA. 20 years from now they'll be saying the same thing about Jordan. "Yeah he was great for his time, but guys now are so much bigger and faster! Blah blah blah"

OceanSpray
02-09-2013, 09:17 PM
So did your earth god LeBron for a large portion of his career.

And look what he's done. He's shooting threes at a huge rate. What's your point? The guy went to Hakeem to learn post moves when he just won a damn ring. He's constantly improving, I really don't see how you guys think his athleticism is the only asset he has.

Chronz
02-11-2013, 06:37 AM
I hate your posts because it seems you can't comprehend what it really means.
Good to know you feel the same way I do. What do you mean by "it"?


He's asking which center is the best, which default, means he's comparing who the best center is because he can't decide who to put on his starting lineup.
No he really isnt. Hes saying the debate itself is tough, a fact compounded by his belief that few can remember centers outside of Shaq (the most recent center)

Break down his sentence

But a difficult debate since so few have seen any bigs before Shaq.

Hes merely stating that the debate itself is tough, particularly because so few have seen dominant centers since Shaq. Trust me, hes not saying Shaq is the guy he feels is the best, Shaq just so happens to be the last truly dominant center we've seen in awhile.

I guess we'll have to hope he clears it up because I really didn't read that the same way you did. Either way, Id much rather argue the premise.


Shaq wasn't an elite defender. You clearly don't know much of his game. He even admitted he wasn't a great defender. Defensive wise, Hakeem won 2 DPOY, Shaq has none. We're comparing who's the better defender and quite frankly, Shaq doesn't compare.
So let me get this straight, he can finish 2nd in the race for DPOY, All-Defensive 2nd team (behind only the DPOY Mourning), which basically means hes was the 2nd best defender in the league according by accolades (we've yet to touch on his team metrics/influence) and somehow that constitutes non-elite? Is there only 1 elite defender? Over his career hes had his ups and downs, if all your saying is he never attained the highs that Dream did, then I wont argue against that because I have Dream as my GOAT Defender, just took offense to you saying he wasn't elite when he clearly has been.





Offensively, Shaq just outpowered everyone. He relied more on his athleticism than actual moves, EG: Footwork. Since he's offensively better than Hakeem, can you give me ways Shaq could score besides posting up? All he could do was dunk and use the hook. He overpowered the opposing centers with his huge physique, that is how he got so close to the rim. Most dominating player doesn't mean he's the best offensive player. Understand the difference, please.
LOL show me where I said he had better footwork than Hakeem.... What I did say was that he had great moves (particularly in his leaner/quicker days) and despite him not having Hakeem's footwork, he was in fact the better offensive player. Your strawman argument of "most dominant" is wasted here, I never used that term so why tell me to understand the difference.

The rest of your post sounds like you take posting here way too seriously, people are allowed to disagree with your opinion, particularly one lacking in objective evidence.

jayjay33
02-11-2013, 12:22 PM
Lmao.......Shaq was and elite defender. :punish:

LongIslandIcedZ
02-11-2013, 12:27 PM
The biggest debate is probably the importance of rings when determining someone's legacy.

PrettyBoyJ
02-11-2013, 03:05 PM
Lakers vs Kings WCF the conspiracy theories

IndyRealist
02-11-2013, 03:18 PM
did kobe rape her, or was it consensual?

He admitted it was nonconsensual and publicly apologized. How do people not know this?

jayjay33
02-11-2013, 03:58 PM
He admitted it was nonconsensual and publicly apologized. How do people not know this?



Lol........What?

leftymo
02-11-2013, 04:19 PM
well, it isn't pretty, its very one sided..

The side with a guy that went to 7 finals? the one that guards 6'6"+ SG's, and not the Dan Majerle's, Jeff Hornaceks, John Starks, Craig Ehlo, Danny Ainge's of the world?

lol...

Chronz
02-11-2013, 05:09 PM
Lmao.......Shaq was and elite defender. :punish:
Plz learn the game

jayjay33
02-11-2013, 06:22 PM
Plz learn the game



The fact that you think shaq was and elite defender says it all. As someone else eluded to even shaq would laugh at yo *** for saying that foolishness. You try so hard to make it seem like you know what your talking about (when you clearly don't) that you end up saying silly **** in an attempt to be profound. For the recored Shaq was "good" close to the basket but he was so bad away from it, that overall he was more of a liability than anything. An certainly no where near elite. Unless "elite" means the main reason they keep scoring. Lol

Plz learn something about basketball other than advance stats. :facepalm:

Chronz
02-11-2013, 07:38 PM
The fact that you think shaq was and elite defender says it all.
The fact that you deny it, says even more. Tell me how can you be the 2nd best defender in the league according to accolades/stats, yet not be elite?

Until you naswer that question, the rest of your post/opinion is the meaningless drivvel of a child.

PLZ LEARN THE GAME

IndyRealist
02-11-2013, 07:56 PM
Lol........What?

"First, I want to apologize directly to the young woman involved in this incident. I want to apologize to her for my behavior that night and for the consequences she has suffered in the past year. Although this year has been incredibly difficult for me personally, I can only imagine the pain she has had to endure. I also want to apologize to her parents and family members, and to my family and friends and supporters, and to the citizens of Eagle, Colo.

I also want to make it clear that I do not question the motives of this young woman. No money has been paid to this woman. She has agreed that this statement will not be used against me in the civil case. Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter.

I issue this statement today fully aware that while one part of this case ends today, another remains. I understand that the civil case against me will go forward. That part of this case will be decided by and between the parties directly involved in the incident and will no longer be a financial or emotional drain on the citizens of the state of Colorado"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_case#Settlement

jayjay33
02-11-2013, 08:20 PM
"First, I want to apologize directly to the young woman involved in this incident. I want to apologize to her for my behavior that night and for the consequences she has suffered in the past year. Although this year has been incredibly difficult for me personally, I can only imagine the pain she has had to endure. I also want to apologize to her parents and family members, and to my family and friends and supporters, and to the citizens of Eagle, Colo.

I also want to make it clear that I do not question the motives of this young woman. No money has been paid to this woman. She has agreed that this statement will not be used against me in the civil case. Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter.

I issue this statement today fully aware that while one part of this case ends today, another remains. I understand that the civil case against me will go forward. That part of this case will be decided by and between the parties directly involved in the incident and will no longer be a financial or emotional drain on the citizens of the state of Colorado"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_case#Settlement


I think you need to read what I put in bold again. He is saying that it WAS consensual, but that he understands that now (after the fact) "She" (not him) doesn't Feel she gave consent. But Kobe believes she did. So basically he wanted to deny any wrong doing, but without calling her a skeezer.

b@llhog24
02-11-2013, 08:23 PM
And look what he's done. He's shooting threes at a huge rate. What's your point? The guy went to Hakeem to learn post moves when he just won a damn ring. He's constantly improving, I really don't see how you guys think his athleticism is the only asset he has.

What about the years where he wasn't shooting 3's at a great pace? I speaking of LeBron in his earlier years. The guy got most of it done based on athleticism + great court vision.

seikou8
02-11-2013, 08:28 PM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/ratings.cgi


worst nba all time ranking list i ever seen this is really horrible:facepalm:

Jenceman
02-11-2013, 09:01 PM
Kobe is 99th all time on that list. Holy **** haha.

jayjay33
02-11-2013, 09:11 PM
Their Ratings System

All players have an initial rating of 1500 points. These ratings are then updated by randomly selecting pairs of players and having them "play" each other.

We start by computing the win probabilities for each player (let's call them A and B):

P(A wins) = 1 / (1 + 10^((RB - RA) / 400))
P(B wins) = 1 / (1 + 10^((RA - RB) / 400))

where RA = rating for A
RB = rating for B
After the winner has been determined, the ratings of the two players are adjusted. If A wins the match then the new ratings are:

RA_new = RA + K * P(B wins)
RB_new = RB - K * P(B wins)
The "K" above stands for the "K-factor" and has a value of 24. (The K-factor was later changed to 10 --Ed.)

While if B wins the match then the new ratings are:

RA_new = RA - K * P(A wins)
RB_new = RB + K * P(A wins)
For example, suppose Michael Jordan ("MJ") has a rating of 2500 and Wilt Chamberlain ("WC") has a rating of 2450. The win probabilities for each player are:

P(MJ wins) = 1 / (1 + 10^((2450 - 2500) / 400)) = 0.571
P(WC wins) = 1 / (1 + 10^((2500 - 2450) / 400)) = 0.429
If MJ wins then the new ratings are:

MJ_new = 2500 + 24 * 0.429 = 2510
WC_new = 2450 - 24 * 0.429 = 2440
While if WC wins then the new ratings are:

MJ_new = 2500 - 24 * 0.571 = 2486
WC_new = 2450 + 24 * 0.571 = 2464
Here are a few more notes about the way we have chosen to implement the Elo rating system:

This is a community-based project with the goal of rating the best players in NBA history. In each matchup, the user should choose the player who they believe was the better player. It is up to the user to determine how much weight to give to offense versus defense, peak value versus career value, regular season versus playoffs, etc.

Before opening this up to the public we simulated 100,000 matchups in order to give the players more realistic starting ratings. These starting ratings do not necessarily represent the opinions of the owners of this site.

Pairs are not chosen completely at random. The first player is randomly selected to begin the process. Following that, a second player with a rating within 250 points of the first player is randomly selected to complete the pair. We did this in order to prevent bizarre choices (e.g., Manute Bol over Bill Russell) from distorting the ratings.



I'm gonna need "Chronz" for this ****. Chronz these are your people, help me out here buddy. :D

Django
02-11-2013, 09:23 PM
Django vs The Big House

Chronz
02-11-2013, 09:26 PM
Elo ratings are a cultural thing, they hate on all the Lakers. Thats why its under frivolities or however you spell it

IndyRealist
02-11-2013, 09:44 PM
I think you need to read what I put in bold again. He is saying that it WAS consensual, but that he understands that now (after the fact) "She" (not him) doesn't Feel she gave consent. But Kobe believes she did. So basically he wanted to deny any wrong doing, but without calling her a skeezer.

He acknowledges that she did not consent. He doesn't doubt her motives in any way. So it was nonconsensual

What you're saying is, if the guy SAYS he thought it was consensual, then it isn't rape.

jayjay33
02-11-2013, 10:33 PM
The fact that you deny it, says even more. Tell me how can you be the 2nd best defender in the league according to accolades/stats, yet not be elite?

Until you naswer that question, the rest of your post/opinion is the meaningless drivvel of a child.

PLZ LEARN THE GAME



lmao......vintage chronz. Perfect example of what happens when you don't play basketball and just rely on stats. You have no knowledge on the inner workings of a basketball game. At least learn how to see what's going on the floor. Shaq's was out there causing the whole damn defense to break down. You try to judge players when you wouldn't even know which way was up if you were on a basketball court. So most times you have no clue who's ****ing up what. So being the number cruncher that you are, you run to the stat sheet. Until you can actually understand what's going ON THE COURT,you should really stop pretending you know basketball.


PLZ put the stat sheet down and learn HOW TO PLAY basketball. Because anyone who has ever played basketball would know, that shaq is the poster boy for leaving his teammates high and dry.

By the way 3 all defensive second teams in 20 years is not ELITE accolades. :laugh:

jayjay33
02-11-2013, 10:53 PM
He acknowledges that she did not consent. He doesn't doubt her motives in any way. So it was nonconsensual

What you're saying is, if the guy SAYS he thought it was consensual, then it isn't rape.


His quote: "I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual".

He is saying flat out that he thinks she gave consent. Notice he does not even use the past tense as if he "believed" it at the time but now see's it wasn't. He is saying he "STILL" believes it was consensual. He does not, I repeat NOT acknowledge she did not consent.


He only says he now understands how "she feels" (her not him) it was nonconsensual. But he make's it very clear he does not agree with her assessments and in fact believes she did give consent.


Think about what your saying, your saying Kobe admitted to raping her. He would be in jail.

torocan
02-12-2013, 10:39 AM
Wilt vs Dream vs Shaq vs Russell.

Whether playing today, in the 90's or the old days, it won't ever be settled.

The rest? It's just the debate of the moment.

C_Mund
02-12-2013, 12:05 PM
That isn't even a real debate...

Agreed. If we're talking all-time, it could be more about the greatest big men, since the lines aren't as clear there. Or maybe even Bird's prime vs. Magic's prime.

Chronz
02-12-2013, 12:34 PM
lmao......vintage chronz. Perfect example of what happens when you don't play basketball and just rely on stats.
Only your lying, because I relied on subjectivity of accolades on top of the objective data that supports my opinion. Sorry you have nothing but your flawed brain.



You have no knowledge on the inner workings of a basketball game. At least learn how to see what's going on the floor. Shaq's was out there causing the whole damn defense to break down. You try to judge players when you wouldn't even know which way was up if you were on a basketball court. So most times you have no clue who's ****ing up what. So being the number cruncher that you are, you run to the stat sheet. Until you can actually understand what's going ON THE COURT,you should really stop pretending you know basketball.
Cute story bro but until you tell me how you can finish as the 2nd best defender in the league according to the accolades and still NOT be ELITE defender, what you write is nothing more than fiction.



PLZ put the stat sheet down and learn HOW TO PLAY basketball. Because anyone who has ever played basketball would know, that shaq is the poster boy for leaving his teammates high and dry.
Ill take the stats and accolades that agree with my opinion over your flawed brain thank you very much.


By the way 3 all defensive second teams in 20 years is not ELITE accolades. :laugh:
LMFAO, who said he was equally dominant for all 20 years? Showing your inability to interpret the English language again.

Finishing 2nd in the DPOY while finishing only behind the eventual DPOY in an All-D selection means you were the 2nd best defender in the LEAGUE
Sorry but those are the facts, I know its not a meaningless/unsubstantiated opinion, but you will just have to face facts.

Unless you have some proof, I think we are done here.

Oh and again
PLZ LEARN THE GAME.

You waste both of our time with the ignorance you spew. I mean I can understand why you dont want to research classic teams like the Wilt/West Lakers but this is Shaq we are talking about. He didn't retire that long ago, how do you know so little about the last dominant bigman we had?

bcc
02-12-2013, 12:54 PM
Magic :)

...with much thanks to Mr. Leonard Bias, who destroyed that Celtics dynasty.

ink
02-12-2013, 01:37 PM
Only your lying, because I relied on subjectivity of accolades on top of the objective data that supports my opinion. Sorry you have nothing but your flawed brain.



Cute story bro but until you tell me how you can finish as the 2nd best defender in the league according to the accolades and still NOT be ELITE defender, what you write is nothing more than fiction.



Ill take the stats and accolades that agree with my opinion over your flawed brain thank you very much.


LMFAO, who said he was equally dominant for all 20 years? Showing your inability to interpret the English language again.

Finishing 2nd in the DPOY while finishing only behind the eventual DPOY in an All-D selection means you were the 2nd best defender in the LEAGUE
Sorry but those are the facts, I know its not a meaningless/unsubstantiated opinion, but you will just have to face facts.

Unless you have some proof, I think we are done here.

Oh and again
PLZ LEARN THE GAME.

You waste both of our time with the ignorance you spew. I mean I can understand why you dont want to research classic teams like the Wilt/West Lakers but this is Shaq we are talking about. He didn't retire that long ago, how do you know so little about the last dominant bigman we had?

I haven't read any of this discussion but really Chronz you're using "flawed brain" personal insults to beat the guy down with? :confused:

Chronz
02-12-2013, 01:43 PM
I haven't read any of this discussion but really Chronz you're using "flawed brain" personal insults to beat the guy down with? :confused:
I fight water with water.

Its a twist on his "you only rely on stats/you know nothing ..etc" when Ive only referenced facts. When attempting to counter facts bolstered by both subjective/objective evidence, this person is left with nothing but a flawed rationale. Thus its his flawed opinion vs my facts

jayjay33
02-12-2013, 02:47 PM
Only your lying, because I relied on subjectivity of accolades on top of the objective data that supports my opinion. Sorry you have nothing but your flawed brain.



Cute story bro but until you tell me how you can finish as the 2nd best defender in the league according to the accolades and still NOT be ELITE defender, what you write is nothing more than fiction.



Ill take the stats and accolades that agree with my opinion over your flawed brain thank you very much.


LMFAO, who said he was equally dominant for all 20 years? Showing your inability to interpret the English language again.

Finishing 2nd in the DPOY while finishing only behind the eventual DPOY in an All-D selection means you were the 2nd best defender in the LEAGUE
Sorry but those are the facts, I know its not a meaningless/unsubstantiated opinion, but you will just have to face facts.

Unless you have some proof, I think we are done here.

Oh and again
PLZ LEARN THE GAME.

You waste both of our time with the ignorance you spew. I mean I can understand why you dont want to research classic teams like the Wilt/West Lakers but this is Shaq we are talking about. He didn't retire that long ago, how do you know so little about the last dominant bigman we had?



OOOh you are saying shaq was and elite defender, 1 year. The guy was clearly speaking in general about shaq's defense therefore since you were rebutting him, I assumed you were to. But forgot who I was talking to, I should have know you would twist the **** all around.


But it's my fault, I know better than to entertain your foolishness. Won't happen again.

jayjay33
02-12-2013, 02:58 PM
I fight water with water.

Its a twist on his "you only rely on stats/you know nothing ..etc" when Ive only referenced facts. When attempting to counter facts bolstered by both subjective/objective evidence, this person is left with nothing but a flawed rationale. Thus its his flawed opinion vs my facts

Don't blame me, it's my fault, you never played basketball an therefore don't really understand what's going on. All you know is 50 is higher than 49, so player A must be better than player B. That's the full extent of your basketball knowledge. :laugh:

Chronz
02-12-2013, 03:11 PM
OOOh you are saying shaq was and elite defender, 1 year.
Where did I say 1 year?


The guy was clearly speaking in general about shaq's defense therefore since you were rebutting him, I assumed you were to. But forgot who I was talking to, I should have know you would twist the **** all around.
I was talking in general too, thats the problem with speaking in generalities, they are by very definition NON-DESCRIPT.


Don't blame me, it's my fault, you never played basketball an therefore don't really understand what's going on. All you know is 50 is higher than 49, so player A must be better than player B. That's the full extent of your basketball knowledge.
Coming from the guy who's awareness of the game doesn't even date back to the West/Wilt Lakers, you have no idea how insignificant that criticism is.

ink
02-12-2013, 03:32 PM
I fight water with water.

Its a twist on his "you only rely on stats/you know nothing ..etc" when Ive only referenced facts. When attempting to counter facts bolstered by both subjective/objective evidence, this person is left with nothing but a flawed rationale. Thus its his flawed opinion vs my facts

It's not a twist. He's saying your approach is limited because it isn't based in real world experience. Whether one agrees with that argument or not, it's not the blunt insulting approach you're talking of saying he has a "flawed brain". You're not fighting "water with water". You're fighting water with insults that are not allowed on this site.

jmoney23
02-12-2013, 03:38 PM
Stephen Jackson vs. Serge Ibaka - Who is more about this life

Chronz
02-12-2013, 03:51 PM
It's not a twist. He's saying your approach is limited because it isn't based in real world experience. Whether one agrees with that argument or not, it's not the blunt insulting approach you're talking of saying he has a "flawed brain". You're not fighting "water with water". You're fighting water with insults that are not allowed on this site.

OK so flip the word brain with opinion. No problems?

ink
02-12-2013, 04:09 PM
OK so flip the word brain with opinion. No problems?

Better.


Don't blame me, it's my fault, you never played basketball an therefore don't really understand what's going on. All you know is 50 is higher than 49, so player A must be better than player B. That's the full extent of your basketball knowledge. :laugh:

And by the way, to the other guy, ease off on the absolute statements please. Chronz knows what he is talking about regardless of playing experience. In fact, you don't even know that to be a fact. Many of the best sports minds have little to no actual playing experience. Here are a few off the top of my head: the van Gundy brothers and Scotty Bowman, the winningest coach in NHL history. I'm sure we can both agree that there are many many more like that.

How does your rationale hold up when you consider basketball minds like the van Gundy's have? Not so well.

ink
02-12-2013, 04:11 PM
Chronz, this has been a fun thread to read through. Lots of good debates in here.

jayjay33
02-12-2013, 04:25 PM
Better.



And by the way, to the other guy, ease off on the absolute statements please. Chronz knows what he is talking about regardless of playing experience. In fact, you don't even know that to be a fact. Many of the best sports minds have little to no actual playing experience. Here are a few off the top of my head: the van Gundy brothers and Scotty Bowman, the winningest coach in NHL history. I'm sure we can both agree that there are many many more like that.

How does your rationale hold up when you consider basketball minds like the van Gundy's have? Not so well.

1. we have long since established that he never played.

2. Allow me to answer that.


Jeff

He is the son of a basketball coach, Bill Van Gundy, the former head coach at Brockport State University in Western New York. As a high-school point guard, he was a two-time All Greater Rochester selection in 1979 and 1980, leading Brockport Central to the Class AA finals. He continued his career at Nazareth College where he earned All American honors while leading the Golden Flyers to an NCAA Tournament berth in 1984. He remains the Nazareth career leader in free throw percentage at 87%.

Stan

Van Gundy was a star guard at Alhambra High School. He played basketball for his father, Bill, at SUNY-Brockport, a Division III school, until he graduated in 1981 with a B.A. in English and a B.S. in Physical Education.



Spoelstra, Another guy who has been talked about, in this regard.

grew up in Portland, Oregon and attended Jesuit High School in nearby Beaverton. Before his senior season, Spoelstra played in Sonny Vaccaro's Nike All-Star camp in Princeton, New Jersey, joining future NBA players Alonzo Mourning, Shawn Kemp, and Bobby Hurley in the camp.

He attended the University of Portland from 1988 to 1992[7] and was named the West Coast Conference Freshman of the Year in 1989. Spoelstra was the Pilots' starting point guard for four years, averaging 9.2 points, 4.4 assists and 2.4 rebounds per game. A member of Portland's 1,000-point club, Spoelstra was on the court as Hank Gathers collapsed and died during the 1990 WCC Tournament.



If you have never played, you don't understand the in's and out's of the game(which he doesn't). Pure theory, is vastly different from the real word. An that's why, If you try talk to him about real basketball, whats actually going on on the court. He'll say the most ridiculous things.

Chronz
02-12-2013, 04:31 PM
1. we have long since established that he never played.


wait what? When did that happen? By "we established" do you mean "you established"?

jayjay33
02-12-2013, 04:38 PM
Where did I say 1 year?


I was talking in general too, thats the problem with speaking in generalities, they are by very definition NON-DESCRIPT.


Coming from the guy who's awareness of the game doesn't even date back to the West/Wilt Lakers, you have no idea how insignificant that criticism is.


1. So either your saying shaq was and elite defender more often than not, which is absurd. Or you you just don't know what speaking "in general" means. My money is on the second one. :nod:

2. Coming from a guy who thought, you could "hide" a 2-3 zone. you have know idea how insignificant All your opinions are. :laugh2:

jayjay33
02-12-2013, 04:43 PM
wait what? When did that happen? By "we established" do you mean "you established"?



Nope, you have acknowledged you never played in previous threads.

JiffyMix88
02-12-2013, 04:47 PM
did kobe rape her, or was it consensual?

boom!

jayjay33
02-12-2013, 04:51 PM
OK so flip the word brain with opinion. No problems?


No, i'm good with "brain". I know how it is when your feelings get hurt and you have no come back. So you result to insults. :D

ink
02-12-2013, 04:55 PM
1. we have long since established that he never played.

2. Allow me to answer that.


Jeff

He is the son of a basketball coach, Bill Van Gundy, the former head coach at Brockport State University in Western New York. As a high-school point guard, he was a two-time All Greater Rochester selection in 1979 and 1980, leading Brockport Central to the Class AA finals. He continued his career at Nazareth College where he earned All American honors while leading the Golden Flyers to an NCAA Tournament berth in 1984. He remains the Nazareth career leader in free throw percentage at 87%.

Stan

Van Gundy was a star guard at Alhambra High School. He played basketball for his father, Bill, at SUNY-Brockport, a Division III school, until he graduated in 1981 with a B.A. in English and a B.S. in Physical Education.



Spoelstra, Another guy who has been talked about, in this regard.

grew up in Portland, Oregon and attended Jesuit High School in nearby Beaverton. Before his senior season, Spoelstra played in Sonny Vaccaro's Nike All-Star camp in Princeton, New Jersey, joining future NBA players Alonzo Mourning, Shawn Kemp, and Bobby Hurley in the camp.

He attended the University of Portland from 1988 to 1992[7] and was named the West Coast Conference Freshman of the Year in 1989. Spoelstra was the Pilots' starting point guard for four years, averaging 9.2 points, 4.4 assists and 2.4 rebounds per game. A member of Portland's 1,000-point club, Spoelstra was on the court as Hank Gathers collapsed and died during the 1990 WCC Tournament.



If you have never played, you don't understand the in's and out's of the game(which he doesn't). Pure theory, is vastly different from the real word. An that's why, If you try talk to him about real basketball, whats actually going on on the court. He'll say the most ridiculous things.

You over-simplify, and all you're doing is antagonizing at this point. Some of the best ever never succeeded beyond high school ball. Red Auerbach is one of those. I believe Gregg Popovich also has no ball experience beyond school. Can you have a discussion without dismissing the person you disagree with?

jayjay33
02-12-2013, 05:09 PM
You over-simplify, and all you're doing is antagonizing at this point. Some of the best ever never succeeded beyond high school ball. Red Auerbach is one of those. I believe Gregg Popovich also has no ball experience beyond school. Can you have a discussion without dismissing the person you disagree with?

1. Who cares if he gets his little feelings hurt. I 'm not insulting him and him not playing is relevant to his ability to evaluate the game. Basketball is not a math equation.

2. George Washington University for red, Air Force Academy for pop.

3. Not if they have no "working knowledge" Of what they are talking about, I can't.

todu82
02-12-2013, 05:11 PM
The top 10 players of all-time certainly fuels a lot of debate.

ink
02-12-2013, 05:15 PM
1. George Washington University for red, Air Force Academy for pop.

2. Not if they have no "working knowledge" Of what they are talking about, I can't.

1. Still regarded by most as coaches with no playing experience. Usually their careers have to go beyond school.

2. I don't agree with Chronz about a lot of things but regardless of ball experience, he knows the game. It's your loss if you can't pick out the things he brings to discussions ... this thread for example.

Chronz
02-12-2013, 05:25 PM
1. So either your saying shaq was and elite defender more often than not, which is absurd. Or you you just don't know what speaking "in general" means. My money is on the second one. :nod:
I would gladly take that bet if I could.




2. Coming from a guy who thought, you could "hide" a 2-3 zone. you have know idea how insignificant All your opinions are. :laugh2:
When I first educated you of this fact I believe I mentioned when Houston/LAL were whining about zones.
Now tell me, if zones were illegal and you had a team complaining about the use of a zone, why wouldn't you call it a hidden zone? Particularly when its repeated in the media or by coaches? If its just the terminology you disliked then spare me the semantics, how about "cleverly disguised zones"?


Nope, you have acknowledged you never played in previous threads.
Do you have Proof? Or simply more unsubstantiated opinions?

Chronz
02-12-2013, 05:34 PM
No, i'm good with "brain". I know how it is when your feelings get hurt and you have no come back. So you result to insults. :D
You dont control the ban hammer so its not your censorship that matters.

jayjay33
02-12-2013, 05:35 PM
1. Still regarded by most as coaches with no playing experience. Usually their careers have to go beyond school.

2. I don't agree with Chronz about a lot of things but regardless of ball experience, he knows the game. It's your loss if you can't pick out the things he brings to discussions ... this thread for example.


1. that's not even a little close to the same as not playing. An that's really only a relevant if you were talking to someone who thinks highschool and college is no playing experience.

2. No he knows the stats. yes it's my loss, as in addition by subtraction.

jayjay33
02-12-2013, 05:52 PM
I would gladly take that bet if I could.




When I first educated you of this fact I believe I mentioned when Houston/LAL were whining about zones.
Now tell me, if zones were illegal and you had a team complaining about the use of a zone, why wouldn't you call it a hidden zone? Particularly when its repeated in the media or by coaches? If its just the terminology you disliked then spare me the semantics, how about "cleverly disguised zones"?


Do you have Proof? Or simply more unsubstantiated opinions?


1. If you think "in general" shaq was an elite defender, then you clearly don't know what it means. Lol

2. Whatever you say dude. See this is what happens when you don't play basketball. You actually think you can play a zone and people won't see it. :laugh2:


3. No need to prove anything, you have admitted you never played, you can deny it now cause your embarrassed all you want. But the fact that you are now trying to pretend you played, only validates my point. If it didn't matter you wouldn't be trying to pretend like you did all of a sudden. lol

ink
02-12-2013, 05:57 PM
1. that's not even a little close to the same as not playing. An that's really only a relevant if you were talking to someone who thinks highschool and college is no playing experience.

2. No he knows the stats. yes it's my loss, as in addition by subtraction.

Whether you like it or not, when people talking about no playing experience at the NBA coaching level, they're referring to whether they have NBA experience. It's the same poor logic: people falsely assume ignorance when criticizing NBA coaches for not having played in the big leagues. Similarly you are foolishly dismissing someone with a wealth of knowledge beyond statistics because you think you've caught him on whether or not he's played. Not buying it.

ink
02-12-2013, 05:58 PM
1. Whatever you say dude. See this is what happens when you don't play basketball. You actually think you can play a zone and people won't see it. :laugh2:


2. No need to prove anything, you have admitted you never played, you can deny it now cause your embarrassed all you want. But the fact that you are now trying to pretend you played, only validates my point. If it didn't matter you wouldn't be trying to pretend like you did all of a sudden. lol

Please move on.

jayjay33
02-12-2013, 06:36 PM
Whether you like it or not, when people talking about no playing experience at the NBA coaching level, they're referring to whether they have NBA experience. It's the same poor logic: people falsely assume ignorance when criticizing NBA coaches for not having played in the big leagues. Similarly you are foolishly dismissing someone with a wealth of knowledge beyond statistics because you think you've caught him on whether or not he's played. Not buying it.



Like it or not, playing in highschool and college and never playing is NOT IN FACT the same thing. They are IN FACT two completely different things. You keep trying to equate not having NBA exprerience to not having any organized basketball experience at all. That is extremely poor logic. The fact that you keep providing people "with" organized basketball experience as examples, when the discussion was about a person with NO organized basketball experience. kinda proves "my" point. Secondly I am not asking you to buy anything, if you think you can have a working knowledge of the game of basketball without having any organized basketball experience that's on you.

ink
02-12-2013, 06:50 PM
Like it or not, playing in highschool and college and never playing is NOT IN FACT the same thing. They are IN FACT two completely different things. You keep trying to equate not having NBA exprerience to not having any organized basketball experience at all. That is extremely poor logic. The fact that you keep providing people "with" organized basketball experience as examples, when the discussion was about a person with NO organized basketball experience. kinda proves "my" point. Secondly I am not asking you to buy anything, if you think you can have a working knowledge of the game of basketball without having any organized basketball experience that's on you.

Think what you like. It's a forum. If you don't like what he writes ignore his posts.

jayjay33
02-12-2013, 06:50 PM
Please move on.

Why? You have already stated that there's nothing wrong with saying I think he does not have a knowledge base to draw from.


quote: "He's saying your approach is limited because it isn't based in real world experience. Whether one agrees with that argument or not, it's not the blunt insulting approach you're talking".



So there's nothing wrong with my opinion (agree or disagree) and there's nothing wrong with me stating my opinion. So what is the problem? It's like you are saying I can't stat same opinion more than once. Everybody stats their opinion over and over. If then opinion is fine the first time, then it's fine the 10th time.

jayjay33
02-12-2013, 06:57 PM
Think what you like. It's a forum. If you don't like what he writes ignore his posts.


He always quotes me, Sometimes I respond. Like you say it's a forum. It's seems you're making it out to be a bigger deal than what it is.

Shkelqim
02-12-2013, 06:59 PM
Biggest Debate has to be LeBron James. Every conversation some how has LeBron and Jordan in it.

Chronz
02-13-2013, 02:54 PM
ink defending my honor? thats a first.

Chronz
02-13-2013, 03:03 PM
1. If you think "in general" shaq was an elite defender, then you clearly don't know what it means. Lol
I disagree but whatever, speaking in generalities means nothing, if you wish to dissect which years Shaq ranked where and why, then we would have something to actually point to, but knowing you, debating was never your intention. As it stands, in general he had his ups and downs, but he had a dominant stretch in his prime years that matter more than the statue he became during his final days.


2. Whatever you say dude. See this is what happens when you don't play basketball. You actually think you can play a zone and people won't see it. :laugh2:
Actually this is what happens when you start watching basketball in 2003. They werent the zones you see today, but back before you were born, zones were actually illegal. You had to hide them with front court rotations.

If what you were saying were true, then why were teams complaining about zone defenses when they were illegal? Its because the good teams knew how to hide zone schemes.



3. No need to prove anything,
Only if you want to add substance to your opinion.


you have admitted you never played,
Proof?


you can deny it now cause your embarrassed all you want. But the fact that you are now trying to pretend you played, only validates my point. If it didn't matter you wouldn't be trying to pretend like you did all of a sudden. lol
Actually, its because I love watching you weasle your way out of providing proof. Shying away from facts seems to be your mantra so why the **** would I care about your opinion?


Your memory of basketball is restricted to the 2K era, you didn't even know teams were complaining about zone defenses when they were illegal LMFAO.

jayjay33
02-13-2013, 05:41 PM
I disagree but whatever, speaking in generalities means nothing, if you wish to dissect which years Shaq ranked where and why, then we would have something to actually point to, but knowing you, debating was never your intention. As it stands, in general he had his ups and downs, but he had a dominant stretch in his prime years that matter more than the statue he became during his final days.


Actually this is what happens when you start watching basketball in 2003. They werent the zones you see today, but back before you were born, zones were actually illegal. You had to hide them with front court rotations.

If what you were saying were true, then why were teams complaining about zone defenses when they were illegal? Its because the good teams knew how to hide zone schemes.



Only if you want to add substance to your opinion.


Proof?


Actually, its because I love watching you weasle your way out of providing proof. Shying away from facts seems to be your mantra so why the **** would I care about your opinion?


Your memory of basketball is restricted to the 2K era, you didn't even know teams were complaining about zone defenses when they were illegal LMFAO.


1. Since you can't be both up and down "in general" and elite "in general". I Think it's safe to say you just don't know what the **** you are talking about. lmao


2. Please tell me, who do you think the zone was hidden from? See this is a perfect example of why your not playing basketball is relevant. You hear things other people say but because you no experience, you don't really understand what they mean. An because you have no experience you take them to literally. You cannot HIDE a zone.


I didn't know teams where complaining? lol francis and mobley, iso, why the rule change, any of that convo ringing a bell. Plz stop speaking out of ignorance. :no:

If the zone was in fact HIDDEN, then why were teams complaining?........Give up? Because they could "SEE" the zone genius, when you are playing zone PEOPLE KNOW, they can see it. So basically what you're saying is, the teams could see it, but it was hidden from the refs. Really dude? :punish:


Also, there are full-on zones such as 2-3, then there's zone-ish. Teams "got away" with playing zone-ish defense, NOT a full on zone and MORE importantly and to my point. IT WAS NOT HIDDEN. EVERYBODY could see what they were doing. The league gave teams a little wiggle room. But as hawkeye likes to say the "nanosecond" you stop playing man to man PEOPLE KNOW. You can play something zone-ish (that has nowhere near the same effect as playing a full on 2-3 by the way) that they will "LET" you get away with. But what your doing is not "hidden" form them. :facepalm:


So for the last time you "basketball challenged individual". It was NOT, I repeat NOT hidden from anybody. Except maybe a novice like you.


3. I Would tell you, I really don't give a **** why you pretended or what you care about. But you already know that. :laugh2:


Man, you couldn't fill a tea cup with what you know about the actual game of basketball. I'm just wasting my time.

ink
02-13-2013, 06:11 PM
Why? You have already stated that there's nothing wrong with saying I think he does not have a knowledge base to draw from.


quote: "He's saying your approach is limited because it isn't based in real world experience. Whether one agrees with that argument or not, it's not the blunt insulting approach you're talking".



So there's nothing wrong with my opinion (agree or disagree) and there's nothing wrong with me stating my opinion. So what is the problem? It's like you are saying I can't stat same opinion more than once. Everybody stats their opinion over and over. If then opinion is fine the first time, then it's fine the 10th time.

THe problem is that it's off topic. The thread asks for topics of basketball debate, not grievances between two posters. You had your say, now it's time to move on.

jayjay33
02-13-2013, 07:02 PM
Why? You have already stated that there's nothing wrong with saying I think he does not have a knowledge base to draw from.


quote: "He's saying your approach is limited because it isn't based in real world experience. Whether one agrees with that argument or not, it's not the blunt insulting approach you're talking".



So there's nothing wrong with my opinion (agree or disagree) and there's nothing wrong with me stating my opinion. So what is the problem? It's like you are saying I can't stat same opinion more than once. Everybody stats their opinion over and over. If then opinion is fine the first time, then it's fine the 10th time.

THe problem is that it's off topic. The thread asks for topics of basketball debate, not grievances between two posters. You had your say, now it's time to move on.


I didn't think it was a big deal, but fair enough....... I'll leave it alone.

Chronz
02-13-2013, 10:21 PM
1. Since you can't be both up and down "in general" and elite "in general". I Think it's safe to say you just don't know what the **** you are talking about. lmao
Nope, just more evidence of you unable to apply context, or account for consistency. In general he had his ups and downs because of his decline during the latter part of his career. Looking at his best years (the years I value most), he had a very dominant stretch so during that prime run, and he was "in general" an elite defender. The reason I stated that was to provide more accuracy of my stance.

But again, your bickering over non-descript definitions, if you wish to point out the specifics, feel free to do so. But knowing you, this debate will never begin. The more I try to clarify, the less you debate.



2. Please tell me, who do you think the zone was hidden from?
Cmon man its not that hard to figure out, who do you think the teams were complaining about? If you see an illegal act applied, do you assume that the travesty is going on because the refs are simply OK with disobeying the rules, or do you assume that the refs have trouble seeing those zones? I mean cmon, who else would the team execs be complaining about? The fans? Their own players, the opposing players for not telling the refs of their intent? Owners wanted clearer guidelines on calling illegal defense and refs to maintain them. Literally every team complained at one point, some cried louder than others.

If they weren't hidden then they would have been called for their illegality.


See this is a perfect example of why your not playing basketball is relevant.
You can say this as often as you wish, but when it comes from someone who cant provide proof to his claims, why would anyone care?


You hear things other people say but because you no experience, you don't really understand what they mean. An because you have no experience you take them to literally. You cannot HIDE a zone.
Other people? LMFAO you mean coaches and members of the media? Tell me, why the **** would I side with you over them? I remember hearing about hidden/de facto zones a LONG time ago.

If they weren't hidden then they would have been called for their illegality.




If the zone was in fact HIDDEN, then why were teams complaining?........Give up? Because they could "SEE" the zone genius, when you are playing zone PEOPLE KNOW, they can see it. So basically what you're saying is, the teams could see it, but it was hidden from the refs. Really dude? :punish:
Yes really, who else would teams be complaining about? LMFAO of course they saw it, their case was that the refs didn't call them. Thats why they were called hidden zones, because the savvy teams could hide them in their rotations.


Thats why they referred to them as "hidden" zones or DEFACTO ZONES. Look Ive already stated what I meant by hidden zones. If its the terminology you have a problem with then take it up with the COACHES AND MEDIA who began complaining about the use of ILLEGAL ZONES. The longer you cling to semantics, the less valid your posts become.

What would you have me call the use of these cleverly disguised zones?



Also, there are full-on zones such as 2-3, then there's zone-ish.
LMFAO zone-ish? And your the one ragging on the terminology I use? Oh the irony is rich.
There are all sorts of zones, the zone you were attempting to describe is known as a MATCHUP-ZONE, for **** sake do yourself a favor and google that term.



Teams "got away" with playing zone-ish defense,
That was ILLEGAL. For **** sake why cant you grasp this simple fact?

If they weren't hidden then they would have been called for their illegality.


NOT a full on zone
So basically when Phil Jackson claimed a team was getting away with a box-1 zone, hes not talking about a full on zone? Well then clearly hes talking about the NBA version of the same defense, only beyond the legal limits. Same thing Ive said. The zones were hidden because they were suppose to be illegal. If they weren't hidden then they would have been called for their illegality.

Well if you want to be technical, full on zones dont exist in the NBA (thanks to the 3-second rule) so what exactly are you talking about? Im talking about NBA terminology. I think its time you start doing the same, and unless you can prove your terminology is better than actual NBA coaches and media members, I will continue using their terms.



and MORE importantly and to my point. IT WAS NOT HIDDEN. EVERYBODY could see what they were doing. The league gave teams a little wiggle room. But as hawkeye likes to say the "nanosecond" you stop playing man to man PEOPLE KNOW.
Teams were getting away with illegal defenses, its why the commish recieved an outburst of complaints from the league at large.

If they weren't hidden then they would have been called for their illegality.



You can play something zone-ish (that has nowhere near the same effect as playing a full on 2-3 by the way) that they will "LET" you get away with. But what your doing is not "hidden" form them. :facepalm:
Prove it , oh wait its you lMFAO. Actually 2-3 zones are the weakest zones and teams rarely rely on them. What is much more prevalent today is loading up "strong side box" in a matchup zone. That is much stronger than a 2-3. LMFAO that college **** that doesn't work as well in the NBA. You would know that if you had any semblance of basketball IQ.


So for the last time you "basketball challenged individual". It was NOT, I repeat NOT hidden from anybody. Except maybe a novice like you.
So then why didn't the refs call those illegal actions that EVERYONE complained about?

If they weren't hidden then they would have been called for their illegality.


3. I Would tell you, I really don't give a **** why you pretended or what you care about. But you already know that. :laugh2:
Of course I know, but you do see the point in me asking for proof right? Its just to watch you squirm.


Man, you couldn't fill a tea cup with what you know about the actual game of basketball. I'm just wasting my time.
After your done googling a simple concept like "matchup zones", pm me and I can give you some game tape of those Classic Lakers you seem to know so little about.

jayjay33
02-14-2013, 01:05 AM
Nope, just more evidence of you unable to apply context, or account for consistency. In general he had his ups and downs because of his decline during the latter part of his career. Looking at his best years (the years I value most), he had a very dominant stretch so during that prime run, and he was "in general" an elite defender. The reason I stated that was to provide more accuracy of my stance.

But again, your bickering over non-descript definitions, if you wish to point out the specifics, feel free to do so. But knowing you, this debate will never begin. The more I try to clarify, the less you debate.



Cmon man its not that hard to figure out, who do you think the teams were complaining about? If you see an illegal act applied, do you assume that the travesty is going on because the refs are simply OK with disobeying the rules, or do you assume that the refs have trouble seeing those zones? I mean cmon, who else would the team execs be complaining about? The fans? Their own players, the opposing players for not telling the refs of their intent? Owners wanted clearer guidelines on calling illegal defense and refs to maintain them. Literally every team complained at one point, some cried louder than others.

If they weren't hidden then they would have been called for their illegality.


You can say this as often as you wish, but when it comes from someone who cant provide proof to his claims, why would anyone care?


Other people? LMFAO you mean coaches and members of the media? Tell me, why the **** would I side with you over them? I remember hearing about hidden/de facto zones a LONG time ago.

If they weren't hidden then they would have been called for their illegality.




Yes really, who else would teams be complaining about? LMFAO of course they saw it, their case was that the refs didn't call them. Thats why they were called hidden zones, because the savvy teams could hide them in their rotations.


Thats why they referred to them as "hidden" zones or DEFACTO ZONES. Look Ive already stated what I meant by hidden zones. If its the terminology you have a problem with then take it up with the COACHES AND MEDIA who began complaining about the use of ILLEGAL ZONES. The longer you cling to semantics, the less valid your posts become.

What would you have me call the use of these cleverly disguised zones?



LMFAO zone-ish? And your the one ragging on the terminology I use? Oh the irony is rich.
There are all sorts of zones, the zone you were attempting to describe is known as a MATCHUP-ZONE, for **** sake do yourself a favor and google that term.



That was ILLEGAL. For **** sake why cant you grasp this simple fact?

If they weren't hidden then they would have been called for their illegality.


So basically when Phil Jackson claimed a team was getting away with a box-1 zone, hes not talking about a full on zone? Well then clearly hes talking about the NBA version of the same defense, only beyond the legal limits. Same thing Ive said. The zones were hidden because they were suppose to be illegal. If they weren't hidden then they would have been called for their illegality.

Well if you want to be technical, full on zones dont exist in the NBA (thanks to the 3-second rule) so what exactly are you talking about? Im talking about NBA terminology. I think its time you start doing the same, and unless you can prove your terminology is better than actual NBA coaches and media members, I will continue using their terms.



Teams were getting away with illegal defenses, its why the commish recieved an outburst of complaints from the league at large.

If they weren't hidden then they would have been called for their illegality.



Prove it , oh wait its you lMFAO. Actually 2-3 zones are the weakest zones and teams rarely rely on them. What is much more prevalent today is loading up "strong side box" in a matchup zone. That is much stronger than a 2-3. LMFAO that college **** that doesn't work as well in the NBA. You would know that if you had any semblance of basketball IQ.


So then why didn't the refs call those illegal actions that EVERYONE complained about?

If they weren't hidden then they would have been called for their illegality.


Of course I know, but you do see the point in me asking for proof right? Its just to watch you squirm.


After your done googling a simple concept like "matchup zones", pm me and I can give you some game tape of those Classic Lakers you seem to know so little about.


1. Right I got ya, generally speaking he was up and down, although in general he was elite. Now it makes perfect sense. :laugh2:


2. lmao, no need to google......I used zone-ish for your benefit, you never got more specific than just "zone" so why would I assume you could. We called it a hybrid zone, other people call it a match up zone, semi-zone, man zone. Sorry if you felt insulted, by me assuming you wouldn't know what I was talking about........Well actually I'm not, but whatever. Although you probably would have had a problem with me calling it hybrid as well. So I guess it really wouldn't have matter. Lol


3. There's match up zones(hybrid), 1-3-1, 2-3, box in 1 (which I saw my far share of)....etc. But the 2-3 is by far the most effective defense. Hybrid can be used in different ways and can be Incorporated into the 2-3 concept. However the version of hybrid your talking about in the NBA (which i never liked) was not very effective as far as zone's go. Because it's was closer to man-to-man than to zone. 1. you can't take away post entry passes ( it is extremely hard to pass the ball down low to post players against a 2-3). 2. There's to much open space, players still have driving lanes and can get to the basket, You cannot drive to the basket against a 2-3 zone. 3. The defense can be to greatly manipulated by player movement. Hybrid is more a gimmick meant to confuse players and close the gap to "ball action" aka give help faster. Where as a 2-3 is a "show of force" that just flat out takes that **** away. Granted best is a matter of opinion. But I don't think it's even close. An no they don't let you play a full-out 2-3 zone cause it would ruin the league. But the NBA version of the 2-3 is the next best thing.


3. If they see it they would call it? Are you ******** me? How often do they call 3 seconds? An they see that every single play, They don't call it unless it's goes to far........same concept. You must be crazy, if you think the refs and the league were to stupid to see illegal defense......that is beyond absurd. Based on your statements, you clearly don't know this, but just cause they see it doesn't mean they will call it. It depends on the severity. Other wise they would stopping the game every 5 seconds. :facepalm:


If they see it they will call it, really dude? That's next-level right there. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Hawkeye15
02-14-2013, 01:41 AM
He always quotes me, Sometimes I respond. Like you say it's a forum. It's seems you're making it out to be a bigger deal than what it is.

he quotes you for a reason. If you don't want to have an intellectual basketball discussion, and instead revert to being a complete homer at all times, what do you expect the responses to be?

jayjay33
02-14-2013, 02:21 AM
He always quotes me, Sometimes I respond. Like you say it's a forum. It's seems you're making it out to be a bigger deal than what it is.

he quotes you for a reason. If you don't want to have an intellectual basketball discussion, and instead revert to being a complete homer at all times, what do you expect the responses to be?

An I dismiss him when he does, for a reason.

I guess I would except the response to be him no longer quoting me. Lol

He could just say I don't know anything about basketball and I am not worth his time and ignore me. Then go carry on about Advance stats with people who actually buy into it like he does. Theres no reason for him to waste his stats on me. He should stick to debating with the people ob here who know the game, like yourself.


An why do you even care? I think you might be taking this bball talk a little to serious.

BKLYNpigeon
02-14-2013, 02:41 AM
Kobe vs Jordan 1 on 1 in their primes.

Chronz
02-15-2013, 02:17 PM
1. Right I got ya, generally speaking he was up and down, although in general he was elite. Now it makes perfect sense. :laugh2:
Only if you ignore context. Here let me try it again by fixing your post.

Right I got ya, generally speaking, for his career he had his ups and downs, but his prime run was dominant.

If thats still too hard for you too grasp then tough cookies. If you have the ability to comprehend this additional context, then feel free to begin the debate.


2. lmao, no need to google......I used zone-ish for your benefit,
LMFAO The guy correcting me on my terminology of a REAL PHENOMENA is all of sudden doing things for my benefit? LOL sure guy. Zoneish? LMFAO Google the PROPER TERM then get back to me.


you never got more specific than just "zone" so why would I assume you could.
LOL thats because I didn't have to. It was YOU who was trying to pigeonhole my term, the hidden zones were just that, defacto zones if you will, they are their OWN TERM. That you dont know of their existence is a result of your youth and lack of passion for the game.


We called it a hybrid zone
The NBA calls it a MatchUp Zone, they DESCRIBE it by the term a hybrid zone for obvious reasons. Plz stick with NBA terminology when correcting someone else's terminology.



3. There's match up zones(hybrid), 1-3-1, 2-3, box in 1 (which I saw my far share of)....etc.
ETC....? keep it going alil longer plz, beyond the simple NBA2K choices. I really enjoy when you start acting like this master tacticion. But good to see you using actual terms. ZONEISH LMFAO


But the 2-3 is by far the most effective defense.
RLY NOW BY FAR? :rolleyes:

Wait for it .......




WAIT FOR IT.........







PROVE IT!!





Hybrid can be used in different ways and can be Incorporated into the 2-3 concept. However the version of hybrid your talking about in the NBA (which i never liked) was not very effective as far as zone's go. Because it's was closer to man-to-man than to zone. 1. you can't take away post entry passes ( it is extremely hard to pass the ball down low to post players against a 2-3). 2. There's to much open space, players still have driving lanes and can get to the basket, You cannot drive to the basket against a 2-3 zone. 3. The defense can be to greatly manipulated by player movement. Hybrid is more a gimmick meant to confuse players and close the gap to "ball action" aka give help faster. Where as a 2-3 is a "show of force" that just flat out takes that **** away. Granted best is a matter of opinion. But I don't think it's even close. An no they don't let you play a full-out 2-3 zone cause it would ruin the league. But the NBA version of the 2-3 is the next best thing.

Cool story bro but nobody relies on 2-3 in the NBA, its gone the way of the dodo, what teams do nowadays is incorporate Thibs defenisive principles of overloading the strong side box. It may look similar to a 2-3 to you because your not privvy to PROPER NBA terminologies, but there are subtle nuances that deem it more of a matchup zone because it comes into effect when teams try to iso/post.

I can give you vids of an NBA trainer sharing this opinion if you wish.
If you were to ask Doc Rivers, he would tell you a basic zone (2-3 spread) is more of a gimmick and something he doesn't like to run.



3. If they see it they would call it? Are you ******** me? How often do they call 3 seconds? An they see that every single play, They don't call it unless it's goes to far........same concept. You must be crazy, if you think the refs and the league were to stupid to see illegal defense......that is beyond absurd. Based on your statements, you clearly don't know this, but just cause they see it doesn't mean they will call it. It depends on the severity. Other wise they would stopping the game every 5 seconds. :facepalm:
Now I KNOW your a 90's baby. If not, does the following headline ring a bell.

IN RESPONSE TO COMPLAINTS OF ALL OUT PROLIFERATION OF ZONE DEFENSES.

You really dont know how loud the league was complaining about the rules and lack of enforcement (in the majority of the league) if your comparing them to the act of counting 3 seconds.


LMFAO show me when the league had to respond to a LEAGUEWIDE COMPLAINT of refs not understanding or calling 3 in the key.




ILL BE WAITING FOR YOUR (LACK) OF EVIDENCE.



If they see it they will call it, really dude? That's next-level right there. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
Of course it is, thems NBA level facts right there. Its why your comparison was absurd while mine shared by NBA reps of the era. LOL counting 3 in the key? I knew you were young but holy smokes.

Chronz
02-15-2013, 02:19 PM
Interesting

I just googled "Hybrid Zone NBA"

First link gives the following description - MATCHUP ZONE = A Hyrbid defense.

Chronz
02-15-2013, 02:20 PM
Interesting

I just googled "Hybrid Zone NBA"

First link gives the following description - MATCHUP ZONE = A Hyrbid defense.

Nick O
02-15-2013, 02:20 PM
Aaron gray vs wilt chamberlain

Chronz
02-15-2013, 02:23 PM
Another interesting tidbit as a result of that search

Rise of the Zone?

There is intrigue about the possibility of a team that specializes in zone, but even the intrigued (including me) understand how unlikely this is. No team played zone on more than 10 percent of defensive possessions last season, per Synergy Sports. Dallas became known as the zone team in 2010-11, but they played a hybrid man zone more than a straight zone, and they did that on a small minority of possessions.

The league overall actually scored more efficiently against zone than man last season, according to Synergy. But some of the teams that faced zone most often — shooting-challenged teams like Utah and Memphis, for instance — struggled horribly against it, putting up sub-Bobcats-level points per possession numbers.

I love when media outlets agree with me, even more when they provide factual figures.

It must be hard to debate with nothing but opinion and no facts to offer.

Chronz
02-15-2013, 02:50 PM
Nothing but opinion and no facts to offer.

Ill send 10 bucks to your paypal account if you have that as your a mantra/sig for 1 month.

Chronz
02-15-2013, 02:56 PM
An I dismiss him when he does, for a reason.
Yes, we all see those reasons.


I guess I would except the response to be him no longer quoting me. Lol
Why?


He could just say I don't know anything about basketball and I am not worth his time and ignore me.
But that wouldn't be true and I sometimes enjoy educating the masses so its not a full waste of time.


Then go carry on about Advance stats with people who actually buy into it like he does.
Sadly I cant talk stats with NBA execs and GM's, so I have to deal with the likes of you.


Theres no reason for him to waste his stats on me.
Thats why none have been mentioned in our little spat, yet you continue to bring them up. Sounds like someones trying really hard to make a preemptive excuse. How about citing FACTS? If "stats" are too evil for you can you plz start using facts ?


He should stick to debating with the people ob here who know the game, like yourself.
So you admit your not among those who know the game?

All I needed to hear, no need for this charade to continue


An why do you even care? I think you might be taking this bball talk a little to serious.
Nope, we just dont take it as the joke you seem to think it is.

jayjay33
02-15-2013, 05:58 PM
Yes, we all see those reasons.


Why?


But that wouldn't be true and I sometimes enjoy educating the masses so its not a full waste of time.


Sadly I cant talk stats with NBA execs and GM's, so I have to deal with the likes of you.


Thats why none have been mentioned in our little spat, yet you continue to bring them up. Sounds like someones trying really hard to make a preemptive excuse. How about citing FACTS? If "stats" are too evil for you can you plz start using facts ?


So you admit your not among those who know the game?

All I needed to hear, no need for this charade to continue


Nope, we just dont take it as the joke you seem to think it is.

dp

jayjay33
02-15-2013, 07:10 PM
Yes, we all see those reasons.


Why?


But that wouldn't be true and I sometimes enjoy educating the masses so its not a full waste of time.


Sadly I cant talk stats with NBA execs and GM's, so I have to deal with the likes of you.


Thats why none have been mentioned in our little spat, yet you continue to bring them up. Sounds like someones trying really hard to make a preemptive excuse. How about citing FACTS? If "stats" are too evil for you can you plz start using facts ?


So you admit your not among those who know the game?

All I needed to hear, no need for this charade to continue


Nope, we just dont take it as the joke you seem to think it is.



lmao.....that's a lotta post, I won't watse my time reading through all your rants. But maybe if you didn't take it so serious, you wouldn't get your little feelings hurt all the time. :D


1. It's not my fault your terminology is limited to one level of basketball and even in the NBA different teams use different terminology. See that's what happens when you don't learn from the bottom up, you have very limited understanding of things. But I'm good with whatever terms you need to use in order for you understand, newbie. Now, I knew because of your lack of basketball experience your knowledge was extremely limited. But thinking if the refs see it they will call it.....is beyond absurd. You don't like 3 seconds (even though defense 3sec is illegal D) :rolleyes: lmao,well how about fouls? carrying? traveling? Oh wait, let me guess illegal defense is the only thing they will call every time they see it.

2. Your right, this charade is COMPLETELY over as of now, anyone who thinks the refs call everything they see. Whether it be illegal D, fouls, 3sec,.....etc. Knows absolutely nothing and I really mean nothing about basketball. You have just proven beyond all doubt how clueless you are. I never, ever heard anyone say that before. Damn dude, forget basketball did you play any sport? :facepalm: I guess you thought, when they say the refs swallowed the whistle, what they really meant is they closed their eyes. :laugh2:

3. See that's why I dismiss you. I can't believe I wasted my time talking to someone so utterly clueless about basketball and just sports in general. That they think the refs call everything they see. Oh, an educate me? really? Lmmfao, I've both played and coached organized basketball. Where as your just a stat geek with a search engine. There is not a coaching position in this country, at any level that "you" could get over me. He'll you couldn't get one period, lol. So how about you actually do something besides sit at home and google before you dare to address me ever again......scrub.

I'm done with you, any further discussion with someone who's as devoid of basketball knowledge as you are, would be asinine and a complete waste of my time and wisdom. You really need to get some experience, so you can have at least basic real world understanding of what you are "trying" to talk about. Now, I'm out..... #youinfantasyland :punish: