Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 215 of 240 FirstFirst ... 115165205213214215216217225 ... LastLast
Results 3,211 to 3,225 of 3594
  1. #3211
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    To be clear: your argument now is that the Spurs organization, who literally spearheaded the proliferation of analytics in the NBA and won an award for their use of analytics, did NOT use analytics when it came to drafting players and only used it on play calling?


    Does that even sound logical to you?
    That's not what I said. Again putting words in my mouth. I've come to expect that from you though. Nice deflection though. You still have yet to provide evidence of the Spurs use of analytics above all else in their drafting principles. To me, it seems your hand got caught in the cookie jar and you are just posturing at this point to try and save what little face you have left because you cannot directly disprove me after foolheartedly claiming you could. Let's see how you further attempt to posture on your next post, or if you decide to go full ghost on this matter.

  2. #3212
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by mightybosstone View Post
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGYKyRmX4q4

    Here are some George Mikan highlights from the 50s. Please continue explaining how this era is the softest of all-time.
    Wow, you are really going back to the 50's lol.

  3. #3213
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    31,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Romeo Naes View Post
    Wow, you are really going back to the 50's lol.
    "Fact is, this era is the softest in the history of the game."

    You said it. Not me.


  4. #3214
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by mightybosstone View Post
    There's really nothing "convenient" about it. You know those numbers are the same numbers I would use to justify MJ as the greatest of all-time right? Or to point out the greatness of guys like Wilt, Magic, Kareem, Shaq, Duncan and, yes, even your precious Larry Bird.

    Also, why is Lebron "my guy?" You know I'm not a Cavs or Heat or Lakers fan, right? I have no reason to drool all over Lebron as a fan, because he's never played for a team I've rooted for. If I wanted to develop a convenient argument on PSD to try and justify someone as the greatest of all-time, that guy would be a Houston Rocket like Olajuwon or Harden. I have no reason to tout Lebron other than the guy is freaking great at basketball, and I can appreciate that.
    Well, let me see. Are you one of the mob on here taking issue with that fact that I don't have him in my top five? I have said repeatedly he is great. Just not in my top five. I am basically being called a heretic for my believe lol.

  5. #3215
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    6,898
    Quote Originally Posted by Romeo Naes View Post
    More like a delusional fan boy who attempts to use basketball reference numbers he to justify how his boo thang is the bestest evar for. Then gangs up on the people who call out the fact that there might be some context beyond all these numbers you guys value so so much. Numbers, which happen to always and conveniently favor their guy.
    So the numbers favor Lebron and the context favors him too? Itís almost like arguing against the guy makes you look stupid.


  6. #3216
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    17,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Romeo Naes View Post
    Yes, my "feelings" are that bigs historically have been the key ingredients to winning championships. This can be backed up by reading any remedial history book on the NBA. I suggest you do so if you can't admit this fact to yourself. If Bill Russell had the same statistics as Wilt Chamberlain, and had the same pedigree, I would have him as the GOAT above Jordan easily by a mile lol. Too bad there is no direct correlation between individual statistics and team impact in regards to winning championships.

    In the case of Michael Jordan, we can see that these things line up and we can therefore draw the conclusion that his numbers translated into winning championships in a greater quantity more so than any other player in the history of the NBA. Same can't be said about LeBron James. he puts up great statistics, but loses more than he wins. Funny how all the Bronsexuals will go and try to add context to justify all his NBA Finals loses, yet just throw all the statistics at you in regards to everything else. Makes literally no sense when you think about it.



    I know you are, but what am I.

    Not guards, or players that create plays. Besides how good is a car without an engine or the other way around? It takes a team to win a title. Having a top tier player does help.
    So does it really matter that player is a big or a small? So much involved in winning a title. What great big was on gsw when they dominated the league.
    Last edited by ldawg; 02-12-2020 at 04:34 PM.

  7. #3217
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    17,313
    Quote Originally Posted by mightybosstone View Post
    "Fact is, this era is the softest in the history of the game."

    You said it. Not me.
    I am sorry but this is not the softest era in history of the game. Did you see some of those old footage. You got to be kidding.

  8. #3218
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by mightybosstone View Post
    "Fact is, this era is the softest in the history of the game."

    You said it. Not me.
    How is this relevant to the current discussion I mean. Which player from the 50's would even be in this current comparison. What players from there are even considered even top 50 (pun intended) at this point. George Mikan? A 6'8 center with no muscle mass and glasses. We we discussing guys close to, or in the current top ten off all-time. None of which played in the 50's. Therefore it's a moot point. Not sure what it does for your argument. I could rephrase and say that from the 60's on, this era is quite easily the softest. Would that make you happier?

  9. #3219
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    6,898
    Quote Originally Posted by Romeo Naes View Post
    How is this relevant to the current discussion I mean. Which player from the 50's would even be in this current comparison. What players from there are even considered even top 50 (pun intended) at this point. George Mikan? A 6'8 center with no muscle mass and glasses. We we discussing guys close to, or in the current top ten off all-time. None of which played in the 50's. Therefore it's a moot point. Not sure what it does for your argument. I could rephrase and say that from the 60's on, this era is quite easily the softest. Would that make you happier?
    Then why did you say ďeverĒ? Oh, thatís right. It sounds better.

  10. #3220
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    Not guards, or players that create plays. Besides how good is a car without an engine or the other way around? It takes a team to win a title. Having a top tier player does help.
    So does it really matter that player is a big or a small? So much involved in winning a title. What great big was on gsw when they dominated the league.
    When some players play in a more team oriented concept in order to give their teams the best chance of winning, and others play in a stat centric style of play, that has been show to not be as effective against the top tier teams in the playoffs. Is it really fair to compare the "numbers" they put up? Seriously, answer that.

    Bogut was hardly great, but he was very valuable to them and a legit big man when healthy. His presence in the middle was very much missed when he got injured in game five of the 2016 NBA Finals. GSW was a completely different team without him defensively to plug the lane and contest shots. Thus, showing the true value of the legit big man. Most important position defensively on the floor. Can't argue that.

  11. #3221
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by Saddletramp View Post
    Then why did you say ďeverĒ? Oh, thatís right. It sounds better.
    Bringing up the 50's era, is kinda like bringing up the D-League imo lol. True NBA basketball did not even begin until the 60's.

  12. #3222
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    6,898
    Quote Originally Posted by Romeo Naes View Post
    When some players play in a more team oriented concept in order to give their teams the best chance of winning, and others play in a stat centric style of play, that has been show to not be as effective against the top tier teams in the playoffs. Is it really fair to compare the "numbers" they put up? Seriously, answer that.

    Bogut was hardly great, but he was very valuable to them and a legit big man when healthy. His presence in the middle was very much missed when he got injured in game five of the 2016 NBA Finals. GSW was a completely different team without him defensively to plug the lane and contest shots. Thus, showing the true value of the legit big man. Most important position defensively on the floor. Can't argue that.
    They were barely playing Bogut at that point.

    He played 60 minutes in 5 games for crying out loud. I would say that youíve got to be kidding but nope, just ****ing dense.

  13. #3223
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by Saddletramp View Post
    They were barely playing Bogut at that point.

    He played 60 minutes in 5 games for crying out loud. I would say that youíve got to be kidding but nope, just ****ing dense.
    Even Steph and Klay didn't have many minutes logged in the first few games due to blow out situations, then in game five he went out early after JR under cut him. Not a true accurate representation of his minutes. It wasn't as bad as losing Draymond for all of game five, but still a quite a nasty loss to have. He was a starter and would usually give them 25-30 good minutes a game in a normal situation.

  14. #3224
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    6,898
    Quote Originally Posted by Romeo Naes View Post
    Even Steph and Klay didn't have many minutes logged in the first few games due to blow out situations, then in game five he went out early after JR under cut him. Not a true accurate representation of his minutes. It wasn't as bad as losing Draymond for all of game five, but still a quite a nasty loss to have. He was a starter and would usually give them 25-30 good minutes a game in a normal situation.
    Did you even watch the series? He was not effective. Youíre just throwing **** on the wall to see what sticks. And youíre being pretty consistently wrong.

    Bogut played 15, 15, 12, 10, 7.5 while the rest of the starters played anywhere from 30-40 minutes everynight. Please.
    Last edited by Saddletramp; 02-12-2020 at 04:51 PM.

  15. #3225
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    17,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Romeo Naes View Post
    When some players play in a more team oriented concept in order to give their teams the best chance of winning, and others play in a stat centric style of play, that has been show to not be as effective against the top tier teams in the playoffs. Is it really fair to compare the "numbers" they put up? Seriously, answer that.

    Bogut was hardly great, but he was very valuable to them and a legit big man when healthy. His presence in the middle was very much missed when he got injured in game five of the 2016 NBA Finals. GSW was a completely different team without him defensively to plug the lane and contest shots. Thus, showing the true value of the legit big man. Most important position defensively on the floor. Can't argue that.
    Bogus was great but a replaceable piece. Thatís like saying McGee was great for them. Or Lakers winning is a testament of how great McGee and Howard are to the Lakers now. Everyone knows the motor to that team is neither of the two but that donít mean they donít play a role. When MJ dominated the league he also had ok bigs but the key guy was not big.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •