55 by Kobe today against MJ's famous double nickel
Capital Stock
legendary. That's the difference. Karl Malone and Dominique and Bernard King
used to score big too, but Jordan was Jordan.
Kobe played hyped up again to show he's as good but he is not the next
michael jordan. Jordan was more spectacular. Even now I say he's more fun to
watch, just with jumpers and the floor game.
Fletch
Capital Stock wrote:
lol...it's sad to see the poor MJ fans holding on. Let it go, man. Let it go.
--
MF
"It also makes me wonder if (Lakers coach) Phil Jackson wasn't half
right about our level of sophistication here in the valley," Socha
said in his e-mail. "That's like daring your dumb cousin to lick the
eggbeater while it's still on. ... Tell Vlade not to tell everybody to
jump off a bridge."
-- Dennis Socha, King Fan
Rest in Peace, Francis Dayle "Chick" Hearn : 1916 - 2002
bozak
RzR
"Fletch" <mfle...@serverart.com> wrote in message
news:3E854A2E...@serverart.com...
>
>
> Capital Stock wrote:
>
> > Same number of points, but not even close. Jordan's double nickel is
> > legendary. That's the difference. Karl Malone and Dominique and Bernard
King
> > used to score big too, but Jordan was Jordan.
> >
> > Kobe played hyped up again to show he's as good but he is not the next
> > michael jordan. Jordan was more spectacular. Even now I say he's more
fun to
> > watch, just with jumpers and the floor game.
>
> lol...it's sad to see the poor MJ fans holding on. Let it go, man. Let it
go.
>
...jordan will always be more fun to watch than any other player ever...just
a fact...cant wait to see all these MJ wannabes at 40 playing...lol
LoOneYto0n
>...jordan will always be more fun to watch than any other player ever...just
>a fact...
just your opinion you mean. I personally preferred watching Magic and even
Bird play more than Jordan, just to mention a couple off the top of my head.
>cant wait to see all these MJ wannabes at 40 playing...lol
why would you want to watch former superstar players playing at a fraction of
their former abilities, like Jordan is doing now? How it usually works is that
players realize its time to retire when their time is up, not retire three
times, only to come back twice. Especially when the last time is when he's
already past his prime and trying to take a perennial loser to the playoffs.
He should have gone out of the game by hitting the game winner in the finals,
not floundered around for another 2 years on a team that blows.
eichler4
legendary double nickel game. #1. Kobe had 42 at the half which is far
more impressive. #2. Even though Kobe had 42 at the half, he decided to
keep it a team game and defer to Shaq a little bit in the 2nd half instead
of pursue the individual glory MJ did.
"Capital Stock" <ca...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:Rvbha.30$Lk7.256@testbox...
mosszonedotcom
on newsgroups in their long history. Jordan is the most selfish
player that has ever played basketball. Also, he had the benefit of
playing in the high-scoring era of the 80s instead of the much lower
scoring era that Kobe plays in. I can assure you that Jordan tried
very hard every night to score as many points as his arrogant little
self could. However, Kobe continues to surpass MJ on many fronts.
This season, Kobe surpassed Jordan's mark for most consecutive 40
point games, and he also acheived 10,000 points at a younger age than
Jordan. Most importantly though, Kobe won 3 NBA Championships at the
tender age of 23 while Jordan didn't win an NBA Championship until he
was 28. It is only a matter of time before Kobe has more NBA
Championships (all that really matters) than Jordan. He will also
have a comparable amount of accolades.
The only thing Kobe will not surpass Jordan in is the favoritism of
fans, shoe companies, and the NBA executives. For example, he
wouldn't win the season MVP trophies because those always go to
everybody's favorite player. He also won't win defensive player of
the year because those to go to the NBA's favorite players as opposed
to the best defensive player. Those awards are meaningless and are
proved more meaningless every year. The only thing that matters this
year in NBA Championships trophies and in that category, Kobe is 8
years ahead of Jordan. Jordan was 31 before he won #3 while Kobe was
23.
Jordan is dead. KObe is king.
RzR
"LoOneYto0n" <loone...@aol.communists> wrote in message
news:20030329101821...@mb-fu.aol.com...
> "RzR" mcl...@europeonline.com wrote:
>
> >...jordan will always be more fun to watch than any other player
ever...just
> >a fact...
>
> just your opinion you mean. I personally preferred watching Magic and
even
> Bird play more than Jordan, just to mention a couple off the top of my
head.
>
true...i guess i got carried away a little in the statemnet...my bad
> >cant wait to see all these MJ wannabes at 40 playing...lol
>
> why would you want to watch former superstar players playing at a fraction
of
> their former abilities, like Jordan is doing now? How it usually works is
that
> players realize its time to retire when their time is up, not retire three
> times, only to come back twice. Especially when the last time is when
he's
> already past his prime and trying to take a perennial loser to the
playoffs.
> He should have gone out of the game by hitting the game winner in the
finals,
> not floundered around for another 2 years on a team that blows.
not really...i can only imagine how hard he worked at 40 in the off season
to still be able to outplay most of the guys in the league...that deserves
some respect...it is not like he is embarassing himself out there...
RzR
"mosszonedotcom" <webm...@mosszone.com> wrote in message
news:b4cd030b.03032...@posting.google.com...
lol...and you have the nerve to call some other post stupid...
Fletch
RzR wrote:
Wah.....it's slipping..it's...sliiiiiipppping!!!!
Just let go.
> just
> a fact...cant wait to see all these MJ wannabes at 40 playing...lol
Hopefully they'll have the grace to retire before they turn into trainwrecks
like MJ has.
Charlie Board
>
> Same number of points, but not even close. Jordan's double nickel is
> legendary. That's the difference. Karl Malone and Dominique and Bernard King
> used to score big too, but Jordan was Jordan.
What was legendary about it?
Rob Carpenter
"LoOneYto0n" <loone...@aol.communists> wrote in message
news:20030329101821...@mb-fu.aol.com...
>
> >...jordan will always be more fun to watch than any other player
ever...just
> >a fact...
>
> just your opinion you mean. I personally preferred watching Magic and
even
> Bird play more than Jordan, just to mention a couple off the top of my
head.
>
> >cant wait to see all these MJ wannabes at 40 playing...lol
>
> why would you want to watch former superstar players playing at a fraction
of
> their former abilities, like Jordan is doing now?
maybe so...but he is still one of the Top 30 players in the league.
> How it usually works is that
> players realize its time to retire when their time is up, not retire three
> times, only to come back twice. Especially when the last time is when
he's
> already past his prime and trying to take a perennial loser to the
playoffs.
So what. He's still the best player on the team.
> He should have gone out of the game by hitting the game winner in the
finals,
> not floundered around for another 2 years on a team that blows.
In your opinion. And I wouldn't call what he has done the last two
years....floundering. Many an NBA player would love to flounder around 20
points, 6 rebounds, 5 assists and 2 steals a game.
Rob Carpenter
Rob Carpenter
"eichler4" <eich...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:T2kha.275923$6b3.8...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> Yeah, there are 2 major differences in Kobe's game lastnight, and Jordan's
> legendary double nickel game. #1. Kobe had 42 at the half which is far
> more impressive. #2. Even though Kobe had 42 at the half, he decided to
> keep it a team game and defer to Shaq a little bit in the 2nd half instead
> of pursue the individual glory MJ did.
Not to mention he couldn't hit shit in the second half, huh?
Rob carpenter
Dave Zero
Yeah, Looney, in your opinion, and I might add, not a very important one
in this matter. What the fuck? Jordan needs advice from you on when he
should have "gone out"? What the hell's it anything you'd know about
for? He wanted to play fucking basketball, and for a 40-year old, he's
playing some impressive basketball. His knees and legs may be old and
creaky but what's under that shaved dome is something nobody else in the
league can touch yet.
Fuck anyone who dissed him for trying to play baseball and fuck you for
dissing on his recent return. Jordan's earned the right to make his own
decisions about his career, and in what direction it goes.
--
Dave Zero - dave...@mindspring.com jesusofth...@hotmail.com
Xanadu - http://tetrica.com/dz/
The Encyclopedia Tetrica: http://tetrica.com/tiz/
Project Mayhem Message Board: http://tetrica.com/bbs/index.php
"And I don't care about making an ass of myself because most
people already realize I am one." - Dr. Kary B. Mullis
"I criticize by creation." - Cicero
"I would build that dome in air,
That sunny dome ! those caves of ice !
And all who heard should see them there,
And all should cry, Beware ! Beware !
His flashing eyes, his floating hair !
Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the milk of Paradise." - S. Coleridge, "Kubla Khan"
"Worse than war is the fear of war." - Seneca
"He who is not with me is against me." - Jesus Christ
mosszonedotcom
I can't help that stupid people like you can't understand genius when
you see it (my above post). I have presented you with intelligent
logic yet you can't comprehend it because your brain is under the
influence of all the media bs that you've heard over the years. No,
that was a very intelligent post I made and all intelligent people
reading it will realize that. I'll put you down as a idiot who cannot
understand it.
bozak
"Dave Zero" <jesusofth...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b6542s$dll$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
> Rob Carpenter wrote:
> > "LoOneYto0n" <loone...@aol.communists> wrote in message
> > news:20030329101821...@mb-fu.aol.com...
> >> "RzR" mcl...@europeonline.com wrote:
> >> He should have gone out of the game by hitting the game winner in
> >> the finals, not floundered around for another 2 years on a team that
> >> blows.
> >
> > In your opinion. And I wouldn't call what he has done the last two
> > years....floundering. Many an NBA player would love to flounder
> > around 20 points, 6 rebounds, 5 assists and 2 steals a game.
>
> Yeah, Looney, in your opinion, and I might add, not a very important one
> in this matter. What the fuck? Jordan needs advice from you on when he
> should have "gone out"? What the hell's it anything you'd know about
> for? He wanted to play fucking basketball, and for a 40-year old, he's
> playing some impressive basketball. His knees and legs may be old and
> creaky but what's under that shaved dome is something nobody else in the
> league can touch yet.
>
> Fuck anyone who dissed him for trying to play baseball and fuck you for
> dissing on his recent return. Jordan's earned the right to make his own
> decisions about his career, and in what direction it goes.
jerry west he aint... :-)
RzR
...hit the nerve huh?...I guess I am not the first one that questioned your
intelligence...I can comprehend a valid point when i see one, but you
conspiracy theory does not hold water...the fact that Kobe won has won his
championships earlier than Jordan doesn't mean squat...and we have yet to
see what he will do in the future or how many more he will win...as far as
MJ being NBA's favorite player, well MJ earned that throughout his career,
game in, game out, season after season...as for MVP award, it is kind of
hard for Kobe to get the mvp when there is another guy better than him even
on his own team, not to mention the other guys fighting for it...as far as
saying that all the other awards except championship trophys are
meaningless, shows how much you know and think about the value of the
game...do you honestly think that those guys are not proud when they get
elected as best defender or 6th man?...also calling your own post genius and
saying that all who do not agree are idiots, tells something about you as a
person...
...anyways Jordan may be "dead" (wehatever the F**k that means), but Kobe or
any other player still have a ways to go to become THE KING, as MJ was...
flame away, bored anyways...
Dave Zero
Never was....
LoOneYto0n
>>"LoOneYto0n" wrote:
>> why would you want to watch former superstar players playing at a fraction
>>of their former abilities, like Jordan is doing now?
>maybe so...but he is still one of the Top 30 players in the league.
he's still not close to the player he once was.
>> How it usually works is that
>> players realize its time to retire when their time is up, not retire three
>> times, only to come back twice. Especially when the last time is when
he's
>> already past his prime and trying to take a perennial loser to the
playoffs.
>So what. He's still the best player on the team.
thats's because thew Wizards suck. He might be one of the top 5 to ever play
for the Wizards even at the end of his career.
>> He should have gone out of the game by hitting the game winner in the
finals,
>> not floundered around for another 2 years on a team that blows.
>In your opinion. And I wouldn't call what he has done the last two
>years....floundering. Many an NBA player would love to flounder around 20
>points, 6 rebounds, 5 assists and 2 steals a game
that's about 2/3 of his prime, and yes, that is my opinion.
LoOneYto0n
>Yeah, Looney, in your opinion,
yeah Dave, in my opinion.
>and I might add, not a very important one
in this matter.
about as important as your opinion on it.
>What the fuck? Jordan needs advice from you on when he should have "gone out"?
he should have taken it from someone.
>What the hell's it anything you'd know about for?
huh? Please speak english.
>He wanted to play fucking basketball, and for a 40-year old, he's
>playing some impressive basketball. His knees and legs may be old and
>creaky but what's under that shaved dome is something nobody else in the
>league can touch yet.
yet he's already been surpassed. His time is over. It happens to every
athlete. He may have the desire, but he doesnt have the ability he once did.
>Fuck anyone who dissed him for trying to play baseball
yeah, that worked out real well for him, didnt it?
>and fuck you for dissing on his recent return.
struck a nerve, didnt I? Fuck me...LOL!
>Jordan's earned the right to make his own
decisions about his career, and in what >direction it goes.
and you say so. How long till he comes out of retirement for the third time?
LoOneYto0n
>> Fuck anyone who dissed him for trying to play baseball and fuck you for
>> dissing on his recent return. Jordan's earned the right to make his own
>> decisions about his career, and in what direction it goes.
>jerry west he aint... :-)
hell, in baseball, he wasnt even Mario Mendoza. Was Dave's post supposed to
rile me up or something?
Chris Smith
Carpenter" <rcarp...@rmc-consulting.com> wrote:
> "eichler4" <eich...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:T2kha.275923$6b3.8...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>> Yeah, there are 2 major differences in Kobe's game lastnight, and Jordan's
>> legendary double nickel game. #1. Kobe had 42 at the half which is far
>> more impressive. #2. Even though Kobe had 42 at the half, he decided to
>> keep it a team game and defer to Shaq a little bit in the 2nd half instead
>> of pursue the individual glory MJ did.
>
> Not to mention he couldn't hit shit in the second half, huh?
>
> Rob carpenter
Doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. He broke a 43 year old Laker
record set in the franchise's highest scoring game ever (Baylor's 71).
Jordan got some more warm fuzzies in his latest ass-kiss and placate
festival, but Kobe once again took a healthy amount of spotlight off of
Jordan just like he did at the ASG. Laker fans like myself enjoy watching
Kobe one-up MJ.
Chris Smith
<yeahrigh...@europeonline.com> wrote:
> ...anyways Jordan may be "dead" (wehatever the F**k that means), but Kobe or
> any other player still have a ways to go to become THE KING, as MJ was...
>
> flame away, bored anyways...
Maybe he was talking about James Jordan. He is dead and Kobe has won a
championship the last three seasons. MJ hasn't been a blip on the Lakers'
playoff screen in 5 years so MJ hasn't been 'KING' for years. His
reputation was built upon winning titles. Now, he's just a glory hound
waiting for more backslaps for getting Washington three games deep into the
playoffs.
You're holding onto the past too tightly just like your hero MJ (the
adulterer with the gambling problem who once punched a teammate in practice,
headbutted a referee, hesitated to express opinions for fear of taking a hit
in the pocketbook, shunned publications that printed articles casting him in
an unfavorable light, and turned a deaf ear to concerns that his shoes are
made by sweatshop children).
Fletch
RzR wrote:
It's funny how whenever anyone gets his/her ass kicked these days, they pull
out the "haha, I must've hit a nerve!!!" card.
brink
LoOneYto0n <loone...@aol.communists> wrote in message
firstl, from a basketball standpoint, MJ is still a very good player. rob
is right, he's still easily top 30 in the leauge in on-the-court skill
alone. your comparisons to "what he once was" are irrelevant... honestly,
what does that have to do with anything? there are plenty of players out
there making very valuable contributions to their teams who are having
seasons significantly down from their career best. jim jackson, robert
horry, vince carter--and if you take into consideration his season totals
rather than per-game averages, shaquille o'neal--are all excellent examples
of players who apparently must also come under your scorn if by being at
only 2/3 of their prime is the benchmark.
second, from a business standpoint, MJ is helping the league, his team, and
his franchise earn a ton more revenue. everywhere he plays--instant
sellout. wizards merchandising is collecting record amounts of revenue.
since he was--and will be apparently at season's end--owner of the team he
vastly enriched the value of, i'd say that's a pretty smart business move.
third, from a personal standpoint, if he enjoys playing and can still hang
in the NBA, i say more power to him. he obviously finds a lot of happiness
and fulfillment in playing and the fact that he is doing much more than just
"hanging" and is in fact having a very good season pretty much annihilates
the argument that he's taking time from more deserving players for his own
gain.
brink
> > just
> > a fact...cant wait to see all these MJ wannabes at 40 playing...lol
>
> Hopefully they'll have the grace to retire before they turn into
trainwrecks
> like MJ has.
i know you're trying to prove a point, but referring to MJ as a "trainwreck"
is ridiculous. come on, the guy is still an excellent player.
a few friends and i were just talking about how awesome it would have been
if he could've somehow joined the lakers for the stretch run in a trade.
what a perfect fit at small forward--he knows the triangle, loves PJ,
wouldn't even have to play heavy minutes, still a good defender and very
good shooter, has tons of playoff experience, and he would be a *huge*
upgrade over rick fox. (of course, there's no way this could have every
happened for a lot of reasons, but it's all right to dream.)
even *you* would have to admit to as much.
brink
Rob Carpenter <rcarp...@rmc-consulting.com> wrote in message
news:B3oha.21954$TW2.3...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
> "eichler4" <eich...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:T2kha.275923$6b3.8...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> > Yeah, there are 2 major differences in Kobe's game lastnight, and
Jordan's
> > legendary double nickel game. #1. Kobe had 42 at the half which is far
> > more impressive. #2. Even though Kobe had 42 at the half, he decided
to
> > keep it a team game and defer to Shaq a little bit in the 2nd half
instead
> > of pursue the individual glory MJ did.
>
> Not to mention he couldn't hit shit in the second half, huh?
it's really, *really* hard to hit shots while sitting on the bench in a
blowout win.
Fletch
brink wrote:
> Fletch <mfle...@serverart.com> wrote in message
> news:3E86094A...@serverart.com...
>
> > > just
> > > a fact...cant wait to see all these MJ wannabes at 40 playing...lol
> >
> > Hopefully they'll have the grace to retire before they turn into
> trainwrecks
> > like MJ has.
>
> i know you're trying to prove a point, but referring to MJ as a "trainwreck"
> is ridiculous. come on, the guy is still an excellent player.
You remember who we're talking about, right?
Fletch
brink wrote:
Shaq is 2/3 of his prime?
>
>
> second, from a business standpoint, MJ is helping the league, his team, and
> his franchise earn a ton more revenue. everywhere he plays--instant
> sellout. wizards merchandising is collecting record amounts of revenue.
> since he was--and will be apparently at season's end--owner of the team he
> vastly enriched the value of, i'd say that's a pretty smart business move.
>
> third, from a personal standpoint, if he enjoys playing and can still hang
> in the NBA, i say more power to him. he obviously finds a lot of happiness
> and fulfillment in playing and the fact that he is doing much more than just
> "hanging" and is in fact having a very good season pretty much annihilates
> the argument that he's taking time from more deserving players for his own
> gain.
--
$Bill
>
> Shaq is 2/3 of his prime?
That's 67% - I might give him in the 70+% in the last few games,
but that's probably stretching it on D. I would agree pretty
much with the 2/3's estimate. Hopefully he can get to 80+ by
PO time.
RzR
uuuu yeah it hurtz bad lol
RzR
"Chris Smith" <chri...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Wfuha.2311$rN3.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> In article <b65c66$93b7$1...@as201.hinet.hr>, "RzR"
> <yeahrigh...@europeonline.com> wrote:
>
>
> > ...anyways Jordan may be "dead" (wehatever the F**k that means), but
Kobe or
> > any other player still have a ways to go to become THE KING, as MJ
was...
> >
> > flame away, bored anyways...
>
>
> Maybe he was talking about James Jordan. He is dead and Kobe has won a
> championship the last three seasons. MJ hasn't been a blip on the Lakers'
> playoff screen in 5 years so MJ hasn't been 'KING' for years. His
> reputation was built upon winning titles. Now, he's just a glory hound
> waiting for more backslaps for getting Washington three games deep into
the
> playoffs.
...true he hasnt been in any contest to win the champisonship...but it is
also true that Kobe's winning of the titles were helped by the best NBA
player in the league, and the best coach in the league...as for "glory
hound"...lol...MJ must have kicked one of your teams ass one too many
times...
> You're holding onto the past too tightly just like your hero MJ (the
> adulterer with the gambling problem who once punched a teammate in
practice,
> headbutted a referee, hesitated to express opinions for fear of taking a
hit
> in the pocketbook, shunned publications that printed articles casting him
in
> an unfavorable light, and turned a deaf ear to concerns that his shoes are
> made by sweatshop children).
MJ is human...and even if he didn't do all those things, people like you
would find something else...also, were we talking about basketball here?
LoOneYto0n
>first, from a basketball standpoint, MJ is still a very good player.
I didnt say he wasnt. I said he wasnt near the player he once was. He is a
totally different player than a few years ago. Gone are the drives to the
basket and the spectacular moves and dunks. They've been replaced by outside
shots. Down are his shooting percentage, three point percentage, free throw
percentage, assists, steals and points per game.
>rob is right, he's still easily top 30 in the leauge in on-the-court skill
alone.
>your comparisons to "what he once was" are irrelevant... honestly, what does
that have to do with anything?
they are in no way irrelevant. Im comparing him to the player he once was and
using that to say that *in my opinion* he should have retired for good the last
time.
>there are plenty of players out
there making very valuable contributions to >their teams who are having
seasons significantly down from their >career best. jim jackson, robert
horry, vince carter--
you're talking about role players now, except for Carter who seems to be
injured every year. Jordan isnt a role player, at least for the Wizards. What
exactly has Carter done to make a valuable contribution to the Craptors? He's
played 38 games this season and they're on their way to the lotttery.
>and if you take into consideration his season totals
>rather than per-game averages, shaquille o'neal--are all excellent examples
>of players who apparently must also come under your scorn if by being at
>only 2/3 of their prime is the benchmark.
why would anyone take the season totals into consideration than per game
averages? If the player doesnt play, then they cant contribute. Jordan has
played in every game yet only provides 2/3 of his previous self when he is
playing. Shaq's stats for this year are virtually at his career numbers, with
a slight variance one way or the other in some categories. That's not playing
at 2/3 of your ability.
>second, from a business standpoint, MJ is helping the league, his team, and
>his franchise earn a ton more revenue.
and that's relevant to the discussion for what reason? Its a sad state the NBA
is in if he's got to come back to save it and the Wizards as a team. The
Wizards are going to be in just as sad shape, if not worse than ever when he
finally does leave. They traded Hamilton for Stackhouse, who may leave and
have little other talent that has panned out.
>everywhere he plays--instant sellout. wizards merchandising is collecting
record >amounts of revenue.
and that has nothing to do with his basketball skills. I didnt say it wasnt a
smart business move for him to play.
>since he was--and will be apparently at season's end--owner of the team he
vastly >enriched the value of, i'd say that's a pretty smart business move.
ok... exactly how did he enrich the value of the team once he leaves? The
Wizards will return to a poor drawing, lottery team and the value will be gone
soon. Granted if the team would have been sold while he was playing they would
have been worth more, once he is gone the franchise is just a mess. The team
sucks. They may not even make the playoffs in the Leastern Conference and how
are they going to be worth more when they return to the high lottery draft
picks once Jordan is gone?
>third, from a personal standpoint, if he enjoys playing and can still hang
>in the NBA, i say more power to him. he obviously finds a lot of happiness
>and fulfillment in playing and the fact that he is doing much more than just
>"hanging" and is in fact having a very good season pretty much annihilates
>the argument that he's taking time from more deserving players for his own
>gain.
and yet he's hampering the other Wizards players development by taking their
playing time, even if he is much better than them. He's gone after this year
and the Wiz were never really serious contenders. Then he trades the best
player on the team in a bad trade. He may leave the Wizards a worse team than
when he arrived, as hard as that could be to do. Its great that he wants to
play and brought the Wizards some mediocrity for a while, but at the cost of
their future. The Wizards have no semblanceof any structure.
Chris Smith
<yeahrigh...@europeonline.com> wrote:
>>> flame away, bored anyways...
I must've hit a nerve here, Fletch.
RzR
lol
brink
>
>
> brink wrote:
>
> > Fletch <mfle...@serverart.com> wrote in message
> > news:3E86094A...@serverart.com...
> >
> > > > just
> > > > a fact...cant wait to see all these MJ wannabes at 40 playing...lol
> > >
> > > Hopefully they'll have the grace to retire before they turn into
> > trainwrecks
> > > like MJ has.
> >
> > i know you're trying to prove a point, but referring to MJ as a
"trainwreck"
> > is ridiculous. come on, the guy is still an excellent player.
>
> You remember who we're talking about, right?
magic johnson?
i see you snipped the part where i talked about what an excellent fit he'd
be playing with the lakers and what a huge upgrade he'd be over rick fox.
actually, he'd be a huge upgrade over anyone on the team not named kobe or
shaq.
brink
LoOneYto0n <loone...@aol.communists> wrote in message
> "brink" for...@about.it wrote:
>
> >first, from a basketball standpoint, MJ is still a very good player.
>
> I didnt say he wasnt. I said he wasnt near the player he once was. He is
a
> totally different player than a few years ago.
gee, what a horrible thing to be different.
Gone are the drives to the
> basket and the spectacular moves and dunks. They've been replaced by
outside
> shots.
and we all know that unless a player makes spectacular moves and dunks he's
not nearly as good as players who do.
Down are his shooting percentage, three point percentage, free throw
> percentage, assists, steals and points per game.
hey guess what, FG%, FT%, APG, and PPG are all down leaguewide and have been
trending down for the last ten years. time for the league to fold up and go
home i guess.
and actually from jordan's MVP season in 97-98 pre retiremtent, his 3ptFG%
is up, his FT% is up, APG and SPG are about the same.
> >rob is right, he's still easily top 30 in the leauge in on-the-court
skill
> alone.
> >your comparisons to "what he once was" are irrelevant... honestly, what
does
> that have to do with anything?
>
> they are in no way irrelevant. Im comparing him to the player he once was
and
> using that to say that *in my opinion* he should have retired for good the
last
> time.
you're entitled to your opinion. just as i'm entitled to poke a hundred
holes in it.
> >there are plenty of players out
> there making very valuable contributions to >their teams who are having
> seasons significantly down from their >career best. jim jackson, robert
> horry, vince carter--
>
> you're talking about role players now, except for Carter who seems to be
> injured every year.
i just named a few names off the top of my head... karl malone, john
stockton, andre miller, vlade divac, chris webber all spring to mind as
well. i can go on but you get teh point.
Jordan isnt a role player, at least for the Wizards. What
> exactly has Carter done to make a valuable contribution to the Craptors?
He's
> played 38 games this season and they're on their way to the lotttery.
so he should retire?
> >and if you take into consideration his season totals
> >rather than per-game averages, shaquille o'neal--are all excellent
examples
> >of players who apparently must also come under your scorn if by being at
> >only 2/3 of their prime is the benchmark.
>
> why would anyone take the season totals into consideration than per game
> averages?
what, you mean when shaq doesn't play, the lakers get to put the salary and
salary cap space he takes up toward signing another player to replace his
production?
> If the player doesnt play, then they cant contribute.
exactly. look, you're proving my point and you don't even know it. and
just a couple paragraphs before you were going on about how since carter had
missed a bunch of his teams game he was helping lead his team to the
lottery. somehow in your mind this doesn't apply to shaq missing 15 games
and how that correlates to the lakers losing a signifcantly higher number of
games this season.
Jordan has
> played in every game yet only provides 2/3 of his previous self when he is
> playing.
looks to me like his RPG, APG, SPG, BPG, and TOPG are about the same as his
last season with the bulls when he won MVP. his 3PTFG% is slightly better
and so is his FT%. and his FG% is a whole *two percent* lower (44.5 to
46.5). the only stat that is way down is his scoring, 20 PPG to 28.7. the
reason for this is because he's playing slightly fewer minutes per game,
shooting slightly less from the field, and he's taking fewer of the team's
scoring opportunities. he's still a very efficient player.
Shaq's stats for this year are virtually at his career numbers, with
> a slight variance one way or the other in some categories.
i already told you: if you look at season totals rather than per-game
averages, his numbers are way off from career-best.
That's not playing
> at 2/3 of your ability.
when he was sitting on the bench in street clothes, he was playing at
exactly zero percent of his ability. over an entire season, if shaq were
putting up numbers equal to his career-best in games he actually played (and
he's not), that would mean he's only producing at about 80 percent of his
ability.
so tell me, since shaq's aggregate production has only been about 70-75
percent this season compared to his career best, where is the line below
which you're going to call for him to retire? when it dips below the magic
67 percent mark?
> >second, from a business standpoint, MJ is helping the league, his team,
and
> >his franchise earn a ton more revenue.
> and that's relevant to the discussion for what reason?
because you're saying he should retire and i'm giving another excellent
reason why he did not and should not have. what, you think the NBA exists
for any other primary purpose than to make money?
Its a sad state the NBA
> is in if he's got to come back to save it and the Wizards as a team.
actually, the team was profitable without him playing, they're just making a
ton more money with him on the team. so that's not "saving" that's "making
more valuable." see, there's a difference.
The
> Wizards are going to be in just as sad shape, if not worse than ever when
he
> finally does leave. They traded Hamilton for Stackhouse, who may leave
and hamilton may leave detroit, so what's your point?
and
> have little other talent that has panned out.
this makes perfect sense. "hey, since the other players have been
disappointing, the best player should never have played for the team in the
first place."
> >everywhere he plays--instant sellout. wizards merchandising is
collecting
> record >amounts of revenue.
>
> and that has nothing to do with his basketball skills. I didnt say it
wasnt a
> smart business move for him to play.
no, you just said he should have stayed retired.
> >since he was--and will be apparently at season's end--owner of the team
he
> vastly >enriched the value of, i'd say that's a pretty smart business
move.
>
> ok... exactly how did he enrich the value of the team once he leaves?
you're right, when jordan left chicago and the bulls started losing 60 games
a year, the team immediately started drawing half capacity. and everyone
quit buying jordan jerseys and posters.
oh what, you mean the bulls continued selling out united center for two full
seasons after jordan left? and they to this very day continue to make money
on bulls jerseys, posters, and other products with jordan's likeness and
name, even though he plays for another team? so there's a residual effect
at work here?
The
> Wizards will return to a poor drawing, lottery team and the value will be
gone
> soon.
that's amazing how you're wrong about so many other things and yet you can
tell the future.
Granted if the team would have been sold while he was playing they would
> have been worth more, once he is gone the franchise is just a mess. The
team
> sucks. They may not even make the playoffs in the Leastern Conference and
how
> are they going to be worth more when they return to the high lottery draft
> picks once Jordan is gone?
i already explained it, let's see if you can figure it out.
> >third, from a personal standpoint, if he enjoys playing and can still
hang
> >in the NBA, i say more power to him. he obviously finds a lot of
happiness
> >and fulfillment in playing and the fact that he is doing much more than
just
> >"hanging" and is in fact having a very good season pretty much
annihilates
> >the argument that he's taking time from more deserving players for his
own
> >gain.
>
> and yet he's hampering the other Wizards players development by taking
their
> playing time, even if he is much better than them.
or there's the flip side to this opinion, and that is by making them a
better team and showing them what it means to fight for a playoff berth,
they will be better players and a better team in the long run.
He's gone after this year
> and the Wiz were never really serious contenders.
hint: there are only five "serious contenders" for the NBA title in the
entire league (and that's stretching it).
does that make the other 24 teams' seasons somehow worthless?
Then he trades the best
> player on the team in a bad trade.
he didn't trade himself. oh, you mean the second best player? he basically
traded that guy for another player who is more or less his equivalent in
production.
He may leave the Wizards a worse team than
> when he arrived, as hard as that could be to do.
how is that hard? it happens all the time. he already did it with the
bulls, magic did it, bird did it, hakeem did it, honestly that's a pretty
silly thing to say.
Its great that he wants to
> play and brought the Wizards some mediocrity for a while, but at the cost
of
> their future.
there you go with that crystal ball again.
> The Wizards have no semblanceof any structure.
in light of your reasoning here, this is terrific irony.
Fletch
"$Bill" wrote:
The dude is averaging 27 and 11, and that includes a really slow start.
He's not playing great "D", but he certainly isn't 2/3 of his "former"
self.
--
MF
See L.A. for class
On March 21 in Los Angeles, former Celtics great (who broke the hearts
of many Lakers fans) Bill Russell had his picture on the scoreboard.
The fans gave him a long ovation.
The previous night, when it was announced that Shaq O'Neal scored his
20,000th point, the fans in Sacramento booed. Then, to make matters
worse, a the game ball was defaced, presumably by a Sacramento fan.
Clinton E. Parish
Sacramento
Fletch
brink wrote:
> Fletch <mfle...@serverart.com> wrote in message
> news:3E869637...@serverart.com...
> >
> >
> > brink wrote:
> >
> > > Fletch <mfle...@serverart.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3E86094A...@serverart.com...
> > >
> > > > > just
> > > > > a fact...cant wait to see all these MJ wannabes at 40 playing...lol
> > > >
> > > > Hopefully they'll have the grace to retire before they turn into
> > > trainwrecks
> > > > like MJ has.
> > >
> > > i know you're trying to prove a point, but referring to MJ as a
> "trainwreck"
> > > is ridiculous. come on, the guy is still an excellent player.
> >
> > You remember who we're talking about, right?
>
> magic johnson?
>
> i see you snipped the part where i talked about what an excellent fit he'd
> be playing with the lakers
I'm glad you could see that. Props.
I snipped it because it was irrelevant.
Good as he's playing now (when compared to the average NBA shooting guard),
the fact is that he's Michael Jordan and everyone remembers who he used to be.
No one looks at 20, 6 and 5 and is impressed.
> and what a huge upgrade he'd be over rick fox.
> actually, he'd be a huge upgrade over anyone on the team not named kobe or
> shaq.
So would Juwan Howard.
--
MF
See L.A. for class
On March 21 in Los Angeles, former Celtics great (who broke the hearts
of many Lakers fans) Bill Russell had his picture on the scoreboard.
The fans gave him a long ovation.
The previous night, when it was announced that Shaq O'Neal scored his
20,000th point, the fans in Sacramento booed. Then, to make matters
worse, a the game ball was defaced, presumably by a Sacramento fan.
Clinton E. Parish
Sacramento
Rest in Peace, Francis Dayle "Chick" Hearn : 1916 - 2002
Fletch
RzR wrote:
You're doing veeery well.
--
MF
See L.A. for class
On March 21 in Los Angeles, former Celtics great (who broke the hearts
of many Lakers fans) Bill Russell had his picture on the scoreboard.
The fans gave him a long ovation.
The previous night, when it was announced that Shaq O'Neal scored his
20,000th point, the fans in Sacramento booed. Then, to make matters
worse, a the game ball was defaced, presumably by a Sacramento fan.
Clinton E. Parish
Sacramento
Rest in Peace, Francis Dayle "Chick" Hearn : 1916 - 2002
Fletch
RzR wrote:
> "Chris Smith" <chri...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Wfuha.2311$rN3.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > In article <b65c66$93b7$1...@as201.hinet.hr>, "RzR"
> > <yeahrigh...@europeonline.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > ...anyways Jordan may be "dead" (wehatever the F**k that means), but
> Kobe or
> > > any other player still have a ways to go to become THE KING, as MJ
> was...
> > >
> > > flame away, bored anyways...
> >
> >
> > Maybe he was talking about James Jordan. He is dead and Kobe has won a
> > championship the last three seasons. MJ hasn't been a blip on the Lakers'
> > playoff screen in 5 years so MJ hasn't been 'KING' for years. His
> > reputation was built upon winning titles. Now, he's just a glory hound
> > waiting for more backslaps for getting Washington three games deep into
> the
> > playoffs.
>
> ...true he hasnt been in any contest to win the champisonship...but it is
> also true that Kobe's winning of the titles were helped by the best NBA
> player in the league, and the best coach in the league...as for "glory
> hound"...lol...MJ must have kicked one of your teams ass one too many
> times...
Either that, or he made a valid point that you didn't want to face.
MJ couldn't even get his team into the finals to face our team at it's peak. He
had to wait until Kareem was gone and Magic/Worthy were old before he could
win.
>
>
> > You're holding onto the past too tightly just like your hero MJ (the
> > adulterer with the gambling problem who once punched a teammate in
> practice,
> > headbutted a referee, hesitated to express opinions for fear of taking a
> hit
> > in the pocketbook, shunned publications that printed articles casting him
> in
> > an unfavorable light, and turned a deaf ear to concerns that his shoes are
> > made by sweatshop children).
>
> MJ is human...and even if he didn't do all those things, people like you
> would find something else...also, were we talking about basketball here?
--
Fletch
Chris Smith wrote:
No doubt.
War-Pickle
news:3E87963C...@serverart.com:
> Good as he's playing now (when compared to the average NBA shooting
> guard), the fact is that he's Michael Jordan and everyone remembers
> who he used to be. No one looks at 20, 6 and 5 and is impressed.
He gets 20/6/4... about Finley numbers. A good player, no doubt, but then
again, if a guy like Finley got "Jordan calls", he'd be getting ~25 ppg,
and be at Pierce-level.
>> and what a huge upgrade he'd be over rick fox.
>> actually, he'd be a huge upgrade over anyone on the team not named
>> kobe or shaq.
>
> So would Juwan Howard.
Can't wait for him to come over here.
Fletch
War-Pickle wrote:
Me neither.
LoOneYto0n
>>LoOneYto0n wrote:
>> I didnt say he wasnt. I said he wasnt near the player he once was. He is
a
>> totally different player than a few years ago.
>gee, what a horrible thing to be different.
yet no argument by you that he's not close to the player he once was.
>>Gone are the drives to the basket and the spectacular moves and dunks.
They've >>been replaced by outside shots.
>and we all know that unless a player makes spectacular moves and dunks he's
>not nearly as good as players who do.
exactly.
>>Down are his shooting percentage, three point percentage, free throw
>> percentage, assists, steals and points per game.
>hey guess what, FG%, FT%, APG, and PPG are all down leaguewide and have >been
trending down for the last ten years.
Does any of your above statement have anything to do with Jordans stats being
down? No? Didnt think so, but thanks for the bit of information. Because
other players have less ability, doesnt mean Jordans abilities havent slipped.
>time for the league to fold up and go home i guess.
from the sound of the Jordan apologists, you'd think that it would be the
better idea.
>and actually from jordan's MVP season in 97-98 pre retiremtent,
you mean in his second pre-retirement.
>his 3ptFG% is up, his FT% is up, APG and SPG are about the same.
In Jordan's 97-98 MVP season, he had one of his lower 3 point percentages, the
worst free throw shooting year of his career, assists were second lowest in his
career and his second lowest steals per game in his career at that point. You
used a rather poor season from Jordan, as far as Jordan's career goes. The
real question should be how the hell he won the MVP in 97-98? Jordan is still
down across the board in comparison to his career stats.
>you're entitled to your opinion. just as i'm entitled to poke a hundred
>holes in it.
exactly.
>i just named a few names off the top of my head... karl malone, john
>stockton, andre miller, vlade divac, chris webber all spring to mind as
>well. i can go on but you get teh point.
yes, I get the point. You're comparing players with other talent on the team
to the Wizards, who have little to nothing. Players have subpar years, and the
team can still win if they have other talent.
>>Jordan isnt a role player, at least for the Wizards. What
>> exactly has Carter done to make a valuable contribution to the Craptors?
He's
>> played 38 games this season and they're on their way to the lotttery.
>so he should retire?
no, he should get healthy. He produces when he's healthy.
>> why would anyone take the season totals into consideration than per game
>> averages?
>what, you mean when shaq doesn't play, the lakers get to put the salary and
>salary cap space he takes up toward signing another player to replace his
>production?
irrelevant. I'm talking about what a player produces when he does play.
>> If the player doesnt play, then they cant contribute.
>exactly. look, you're proving my point and you don't even know it.
Im not even discussing the point you're talking about. No kidding a player
doesnt produce when he's not playing and his overall numbers will be down for
the season.
>and just a couple paragraphs before you were going on about how since carter
had
>missed a bunch of his teams game he was helping lead his team to the
>lottery.
Carter has missed 46.4% of his teams's games. Shaq has missed 20.8%. Shaq's
team is making the playoffs, Carter's isnt.
>somehow in your mind this doesn't apply to shaq missing 15 games
if the Lakers didnt make the playoffs, it certainly would apply to the Lakers
being in the lottery.
>and how that correlates to the lakers losing a signifcantly higher number of
>games this season.
it certainly correlates to the Lakers losing more games. They've also won less
games percentage wise than over the previous 3 seasons with Shaq in the lineup.
Its not due to his lower stats though as much as the team not playing as well.
It still has nothing to do with diminished skills.
>>Jordan has played in every game yet only provides 2/3 of his previous self
when >>he is playing.
>looks to me like his RPG, APG, SPG, BPG, and TOPG are about the same as >his
last season with the bulls when he won MVP. his 3PTFG% is slightly better
>and so is his FT%. and his FG% is a whole *two percent* lower (44.5 to
>46.5). the only stat that is way down is his scoring, 20 PPG to 28.7. the
>reason for this is because he's playing slightly fewer minutes per game,
>shooting slightly less from the field, and he's taking fewer of the team's
>scoring opportunities. he's still a very efficient player.
you mean he's still efficient compared to his farce MVP year.
>>Shaq's stats for this year are virtually at his career numbers, with
>> a slight variance one way or the other in some categories.
>i already told you: if you look at season totals rather than per-game
>averages, his numbers are way off from career-best.
there's no reason to look at it that way, I already told you. If he would have
played 82 games, they would have projected out the same way. That's why they
are averages. Its amazing how people always use a players worst year to
compare a player favorably, then try to take any stat they can find to tear a
player down. You dont just give a player zeros in games they do not play in for
individual stats.
>>That's not playing at 2/3 of your ability.
>when he was sitting on the bench in street clothes, he was playing at
>exactly zero percent of his ability. over an entire season, if shaq were
>putting up numbers equal to his career-best in games he actually played >(and
he's not), that would mean he's only producing at about 80 percent of his
>ability.
incorrect. It means he's producing at 100% of his ability, but that he only
played in 80% of the games. It doesnt mean he played at less than 100% of his
ability.
>so tell me, since shaq's aggregate production has only been about 70-75
>percent this season compared to his career best, where is the line below
>which you're going to call for him to retire? when it dips below the magic
>67 percent mark?
I dont buy into your aggregate production bullshit, sorry.
>> >second, from a business standpoint, MJ is helping the league, his team,
and
>> >his franchise earn a ton more revenue.
>> and that's relevant to the discussion for what reason?
>because you're saying he should retire
no, I said he shouldn't have come back in the first place.
>and i'm giving another excellent
reason why he did not and should not >have.
irrelevant to the discussion, but sure, what the hell. I am talking about his
basketball skills, not what it adds to the NBA or to the team.
>what, you think the NBA exists
for any other primary purpose than to make >money?
dont recall bringing it up at all, which is why I asked how it was relevant to
the discussion.
>>Its a sad state the NBA is in if he's got to come back to save it and the
Wizards >>as a team.
>actually, the team was profitable without him playing, they're just making a
>ton more money with him on the team. so that's not "saving" that's "making
>more valuable." see, there's a difference.
I meant saving them in a basketball standpoint, not monetarily. I dont get
into the finances of the NBA, that doesnt need saving.
>>The Wizards are going to be in just as sad shape, if not worse than ever when
>>he finally does leave. They traded Hamilton for Stackhouse, who may leave
>and hamilton may leave detroit, so what's your point?
that they'll have nothing to show for trading their best player, and the rest
of their team is basically shit. Stackhouse played like crap this year, and
from reports he's not happy and Washington isnt happy with him. They traded a
younger, more talented player for a veteran to try to make a run this year. It
didnt pay off, and Washington will likely be in worse shape than before Jordan
joined the team *from a basketball standpoint*. I added the last part just so
you'd be clear on that.
>and have little other talent that has panned out.
>this makes perfect sense. "hey, since the other players have been
>disappointing, the best player should never have played for the team in the
>first place."
no, Im saying they shouldn't have traded their best player, then gotten 2 high
lottery picks last year and this year, and the franchise might have some
direction. Caron Butler or Amare Stoudemire would have been a nice fit for
the Wizards last year. Instead, they trade their best young player, add a 39
year old, and finish mediocre enough that they dont pick up a player that can
be an impact player down the road. Now, 2 years down the road, the team lacks
direction and will have to do this anyway for the next 2-3 years.
>> and that has nothing to do with his basketball skills. I didnt say it
wasnt a
>> smart business move for him to play.
>no, you just said he should have stayed retired.
yet I never said it wasnt a smart business move for him to play, did I? Its
just my opinion that he should have stayed retired. I dont recall giving any
reasons why.
>> ok... exactly how did he enrich the value of the team once he leaves?
>oh what, you mean the bulls continued selling out united center for two full
>seasons after jordan left?
we'll see what happens. Jordan did just a bit more for the Bulls than he did
for the Wizards. I dont know how well the Wizards attendance was before
Jordan. It will likely be back to that within a half a season after Jordan
leaves.
>and they to this very day continue to make money
>on bulls jerseys, posters, and other products with jordan's likeness and
>name, even though he plays for another team? so there's a residual effect
at work here?
the residual will be less once he's finally gone. Depends on how his fans want
to remember him, as a Bull or a Wizard.
>The Wizards will return to a poor drawing, lottery team and the value will be
>gone soon.
>that's amazing how you're wrong about so many other things and yet you can
>tell the future.
this one's just so easy to see.
>>Granted if the team would have been sold while he was playing they would
>> have been worth more, once he is gone the franchise is just a mess. The
team
>> sucks. They may not even make the playoffs in the Leastern Conference and
how
>> are they going to be worth more when they return to the high lottery draft
>> picks once Jordan is gone?
>i already explained it, let's see if you can figure it out.
I figured it, just dont agree with it.
>or there's the flip side to this opinion, and that is by making them a
>better team and showing them what it means to fight for a playoff berth,
>they will be better players and a better team in the long run.
without their 2 top players and a mid first round pick? Good luck.
>>He's gone after this year and the Wiz were never really serious contenders.
>hint: there are only five "serious contenders" for the NBA title in the
>entire league (and that's stretching it).
>does that make the other 24 teams' seasons somehow worthless?
not if they are building towards being a serious contender in the future, which
clearly, the Wizards are not.
>>Then he trades the best player on the team in a bad trade.
>he didn't trade himself. oh, you mean the second best player? he basically
>traded that guy for another player who is more or less his equivalent in
>production.
and a player that hasnt fit in, so says the media.
>>He may leave the Wizards a worse team than
>> when he arrived, as hard as that could be to do.
>how is that hard?
because they sucked so bad before he got there.
>it happens all the time. he already did it with the
>bulls, magic did it, bird did it, hakeem did it, honestly that's a pretty
>silly thing to say.
before they got to their teams. Not when they were there. Before. Get it?
>>Its great that he wants to play and brought the Wizards some mediocrity for a
>>while, but at the cost of their future.
>there you go with that crystal ball again.
refute the claim then. Show me what they have to look forward to. No crystal
ball needed to see that they are in trouble.
When will Jordan be back for the 4th time? 2005?
brink
>
>
> brink wrote:
>
> > Fletch <mfle...@serverart.com> wrote in message
> > news:3E869637...@serverart.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > brink wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fletch <mfle...@serverart.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:3E86094A...@serverart.com...
> > > >
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > a fact...cant wait to see all these MJ wannabes at 40
playing...lol
> > > > >
> > > > > Hopefully they'll have the grace to retire before they turn into
> > > > trainwrecks
> > > > > like MJ has.
> > > >
> > > > i know you're trying to prove a point, but referring to MJ as a
> > "trainwreck"
> > > > is ridiculous. come on, the guy is still an excellent player.
> > >
> > > You remember who we're talking about, right?
> >
> > magic johnson?
> >
> > i see you snipped the part where i talked about what an excellent fit
he'd
> > be playing with the lakers
>
> I'm glad you could see that. Props.
word.
> I snipped it because it was irrelevant.
oh, right.
"hey player X is a trainwreck this season."
"no he's not, actually he's having a very good season. i'd gladly put him
on my team, he'd be a great fit."
"that's irrelevant."
> Good as he's playing now (when compared to the average NBA shooting
guard),
> the fact is that he's Michael Jordan and everyone remembers who he used to
be.
> No one looks at 20, 6 and 5 and is impressed.
hey look, you're trying to think for everyone else and failing.
hint: lots of people *are* impressed by 20, 6, and 5.
>
> > and what a huge upgrade he'd be over rick fox.
> > actually, he'd be a huge upgrade over anyone on the team not named kobe
or
> > shaq.
>
> So would Juwan Howard.
juwan howard's not a bad player, but he's also making, what, 18 million a
year? jordan's making 1M. i think the wizards are getting a little more
bang for their buck...
brink
LoOneYto0n <loone...@aol.communists> wrote in message
> "brink" for...@about.it wrote:
>
> >>LoOneYto0n wrote:
>
> >> I didnt say he wasnt. I said he wasnt near the player he once was. He
is
> a
> >> totally different player than a few years ago.
>
> >gee, what a horrible thing to be different.
>
> yet no argument by you that he's not close to the player he once was.
my argument doesn't stand or fall on 9 PPG and 2 percentage points worth of
FG%, but thanks for playing.
>
> >>Gone are the drives to the basket and the spectacular moves and dunks.
> They've >>been replaced by outside shots.
>
> >and we all know that unless a player makes spectacular moves and dunks
he's
> >not nearly as good as players who do.
>
> exactly.
larry bird and john stockton for you on line two.
> >>Down are his shooting percentage, three point percentage, free throw
> >> percentage, assists, steals and points per game.
>
> >hey guess what, FG%, FT%, APG, and PPG are all down leaguewide and have
>been
> trending down for the last ten years.
> Does any of your above statement have anything to do with Jordans stats
being
> down? No? Didnt think so, but thanks for the bit of information.
Because
> other players have less ability, doesnt mean Jordans abilities havent
slipped.
>
> >time for the league to fold up and go home i guess.
>
> from the sound of the Jordan apologists, you'd think that it would be the
> better idea.
i have no idea what you're even trying to say here.
> >and actually from jordan's MVP season in 97-98 pre retiremtent,
>
> you mean in his second pre-retirement.
oih yeah, i get em mixed up.
> >his 3ptFG% is up, his FT% is up, APG and SPG are about the same.
>
> In Jordan's 97-98 MVP season, he had one of his lower 3 point percentages,
the
> worst free throw shooting year of his career, assists were second lowest
in his
> career and his second lowest steals per game in his career at that point.
You
> used a rather poor season from Jordan, as far as Jordan's career goes.
The
> real question should be how the hell he won the MVP in 97-98? Jordan is
still
> down across the board in comparison to his career stats.
i actually agree with you in regard to the MVP thing--it's not a great
indicator of who's actually the best player in the league. (iverson is
excellent proof of that.)
anyway, his career numbers were trending down in the late 90s, but there are
two good reasons for this. 1) he was getting older and 2) like i said,
league numbers have been trending downward.
but that was still an excellent season, definitely worthy of top 3
consideration for MVP that year and not a complete travesty that he won.
so i use that season as a basis for comparison because it was his most
recent, it was deservedly recognized as an excellent season, and we don't
have as much skew on numbers as we do comparing two different eras of NBA
basketball--the run and gun 80s and the more defensive minded 90s.
> >you're entitled to your opinion. just as i'm entitled to poke a hundred
> >holes in it.
>
> exactly.
>
> >i just named a few names off the top of my head... karl malone, john
> >stockton, andre miller, vlade divac, chris webber all spring to mind as
> >well. i can go on but you get teh point.
>
> yes, I get the point. You're comparing players with other talent on the
team
andre miller and vince carter say hi.
> to the Wizards, who have little to nothing. Players have subpar years,
and the
> team can still win if they have other talent.
i'm completely mystified as to how this affects the argument in any way. i
thought we were discussing jordan here, not his teammates.
> >>Jordan isnt a role player, at least for the Wizards. What
> >> exactly has Carter done to make a valuable contribution to the
Craptors?
> He's
> >> played 38 games this season and they're on their way to the lotttery.
>
> >so he should retire?
>
> no, he should get healthy. He produces when he's healthy.
okay. get healthy, vince.
> >> why would anyone take the season totals into consideration than per
game
> >> averages?
>
> >what, you mean when shaq doesn't play, the lakers get to put the salary
and
> >salary cap space he takes up toward signing another player to replace his
> >production?
>
> irrelevant. I'm talking about what a player produces when he does play.
and i'm talking about NBA basketball here in the real world, where, when
shaquille o'neal misses substantial time, the lakers have so much money, cap
space, and team strategy invested in a player who is sitting on the bench
that they go 5-10 in his absence.
> >> If the player doesnt play, then they cant contribute.
>
> >exactly. look, you're proving my point and you don't even know it.
>
> Im not even discussing the point you're talking about. No kidding a
player
> doesnt produce when he's not playing and his overall numbers will be down
for
> the season.
see, you still don't know it. you want to criticize jordan because his
production is down from his career best, yet it's okay that shaq's
production is down from his career best because in the games in which he
does show up to play, he's still averaging 85-90 percent of his career best
averages. hypocrisy.
> >and just a couple paragraphs before you were going on about how since
carter
> had
> >missed a bunch of his teams game he was helping lead his team to the
> >lottery.
>
> Carter has missed 46.4% of his teams's games. Shaq has missed 20.8%.
what's the magic number then before players should retire? it must be
somewhere between 20.8 percent and 33 percent, you were criticizing jordan
for being off "33 percent."
Shaq's
> team is making the playoffs, Carter's isnt.
we're talking about individual players here, not teams, so making the
playoffs isn't a great benchmark of anything.
> >somehow in your mind this doesn't apply to shaq missing 15 games
>
> if the Lakers didnt make the playoffs, it certainly would apply to the
Lakers
> being in the lottery.
>
> >and how that correlates to the lakers losing a signifcantly higher number
of
> >games this season.
>
> it certainly correlates to the Lakers losing more games. They've also won
less
> games percentage wise than over the previous 3 seasons with Shaq in the
lineup.
> Its not due to his lower stats though as much as the team not playing as
well.
> It still has nothing to do with diminished skills.
skills are worthless when they're sitting on the bench in street clothes.
antonio mcdyess is among the most skilled players in the league and his
value has been exactly zero to the knickis this season--actually, worse than
zero since they still have to pay him and he takes up cap space.
> >>Jordan has played in every game yet only provides 2/3 of his previous
self
> when >>he is playing.
>
> >looks to me like his RPG, APG, SPG, BPG, and TOPG are about the same as
>his
> last season with the bulls when he won MVP. his 3PTFG% is slightly better
> >and so is his FT%. and his FG% is a whole *two percent* lower (44.5 to
> >46.5). the only stat that is way down is his scoring, 20 PPG to 28.7.
the
> >reason for this is because he's playing slightly fewer minutes per game,
> >shooting slightly less from the field, and he's taking fewer of the
team's
> >scoring opportunities. he's still a very efficient player.
>
> you mean he's still efficient compared to his farce MVP year.
he's still efficient compared to when he was one of the top three players in
the league, yes.
> >>Shaq's stats for this year are virtually at his career numbers, with
> >> a slight variance one way or the other in some categories.
>
> >i already told you: if you look at season totals rather than per-game
> >averages, his numbers are way off from career-best.
>
> there's no reason to look at it that way, I already told you.
yes there is. averages are only useful if you're not selectively ignoring
salient information. here you want to say shaq's production has been just
as good as ever while ignoring the fact that by missing 80 percent of the
team's games, he's given the lakers (at best) only 80 percent of what he has
in the past.
If he would have
> played 82 games, they would have projected out the same way.
sure, that's extremely useful to know. now explain to me how that helped
the lakers in those games where they went 5-10 without him and still had to
pay his salary.
That's why they
> are averages. Its amazing how people always use a players worst year to
> compare a player favorably, then try to take any stat they can find to
tear a
> player down.
now you're just making stuff up. this isn't even close to shaq's worst
year, and i'm using this year because it's most recent. amd 97-98 wasn't
even close to jordan's worst year.
You dont just give a player zeros in games they do not play in for
> individual stats.
oh yeah, that's right, when shaq sits out a game, the lakers get spotted 28
points, 11 rebounds, 3 assists, and 2.5 blocks. now how does that work?
> >>That's not playing at 2/3 of your ability.
>
> >when he was sitting on the bench in street clothes, he was playing at
> >exactly zero percent of his ability. over an entire season, if shaq were
> >putting up numbers equal to his career-best in games he actually played
>(and
> he's not), that would mean he's only producing at about 80 percent of his
> >ability.
>
> incorrect. It means he's producing at 100% of his ability, but that he
only
> played in 80% of the games. It doesnt mean he played at less than 100% of
his
> ability.
sure it does. hey, at that rate, if shaq sits out the rest of the season
with a knee injury, the lakers will still win the champiosnhip, after all,
he'll be producting at 100 percent ability.
> >so tell me, since shaq's aggregate production has only been about 70-75
> >percent this season compared to his career best, where is the line below
> >which you're going to call for him to retire? when it dips below the
magic
> >67 percent mark?
>
> I dont buy into your aggregate production bullshit, sorry.
of course not. you'd rather stick your fingers in your ears and say
"lalalalala i can't hear you."
> >> >second, from a business standpoint, MJ is helping the league, his
team,
> and
> >> >his franchise earn a ton more revenue.
>
> >> and that's relevant to the discussion for what reason?
>
> >because you're saying he should retire
> no, I said he shouldn't have come back in the first place.
hey, let's play "fun with semantics."
> >and i'm giving another excellent
> reason why he did not and should not >have.
>
> irrelevant to the discussion, but sure, what the hell. I am talking about
his
> basketball skills, not what it adds to the NBA or to the team.
>
> >what, you think the NBA exists
> for any other primary purpose than to make >money?
>
> dont recall bringing it up at all, which is why I asked how it was
relevant to
> the discussion.
i'm bringing it up because it *is* part of the discussion. what, you
thought the NBA's sole purpose was to entertain you and your friends?
> >>Its a sad state the NBA is in if he's got to come back to save it and
the
> Wizards >>as a team.
>
> >actually, the team was profitable without him playing, they're just
making a
> >ton more money with him on the team. so that's not "saving" that's
"making
> >more valuable." see, there's a difference.
>
> I meant saving them in a basketball standpoint, not monetarily. I dont
get
> into the finances of the NBA, that doesnt need saving.
so it's a sad state that NBA has bad teams that need on-the-court saving? i
guess we better try to bring the parity level up in the league, all those 55
and 60 win teams are beating up on hapless losers and killing the league.
> >>The Wizards are going to be in just as sad shape, if not worse than ever
when
> >>he finally does leave. They traded Hamilton for Stackhouse, who may
leave
>
> >and hamilton may leave detroit, so what's your point?
>
> that they'll have nothing to show for trading their best player, and the
rest
> of their team is basically shit.
so aside from two players, their team sucks. how is this different from the
lakers?
Stackhouse played like crap this year, and
> from reports he's not happy and Washington isnt happy with him.
are those kind of like those reports that say that kobe is going to opt out
of his contract and demand a sign-and-trade next season?
They traded a
> younger, more talented player for a veteran to try to make a run this
year. It
> didnt pay off, and Washington will likely be in worse shape than before
Jordan
> joined the team *from a basketball standpoint*. I added the last part
just so
> you'd be clear on that.
>
> >and have little other talent that has panned out.
>
> >this makes perfect sense. "hey, since the other players have been
> >disappointing, the best player should never have played for the team in
the
> >first place."
>
> no, Im saying they shouldn't have traded their best player, then gotten 2
high
> lottery picks last year and this year, and the franchise might have some
> direction.
you mean tank and get high picks like, say the number 1 pick? i mean, that
would be a sure fix.
Caron Butler or Amare Stoudemire would have been a nice fit for
> the Wizards last year.
i'm sure you had caron and amare listed as the 2nd and 3rd pick on your
pre-draft lineup.
Instead, they trade their best young player, add a 39
> year old, and finish mediocre enough that they dont pick up a player that
can
> be an impact player down the road.
michael finley, steve nash, and tony parker holding for you, line three.
Now, 2 years down the road, the team lacks
> direction and will have to do this anyway for the next 2-3 years.
>
> >> and that has nothing to do with his basketball skills. I didnt say it
> wasnt a
> >> smart business move for him to play.
>
> >no, you just said he should have stayed retired.
>
> yet I never said it wasnt a smart business move for him to play, did I?
Its
> just my opinion that he should have stayed retired. I dont recall giving
any
> reasons why.
wouldn't want those. "i believe it because i say so."
> >> ok... exactly how did he enrich the value of the team once he leaves?
>
> >oh what, you mean the bulls continued selling out united center for two
full
> >seasons after jordan left?
>
> we'll see what happens. Jordan did just a bit more for the Bulls than he
did
> for the Wizards. I dont know how well the Wizards attendance was before
> Jordan. It will likely be back to that within a half a season after
Jordan
> leaves.
i thought you had this all figured out, now you say "we'll see..." what
gives?
"lalalalala i can't hear you."
> >or there's the flip side to this opinion, and that is by making them a
> >better team and showing them what it means to fight for a playoff berth,
> >they will be better players and a better team in the long run.
>
> without their 2 top players and a mid first round pick? Good luck.
they've been clearing cap room for a couple seasons now, i imagine they'll
look to upgrade via a FA just as much as they will with the draft.
> >>He's gone after this year and the Wiz were never really serious
contenders.
>
> >hint: there are only five "serious contenders" for the NBA title in the
> >entire league (and that's stretching it).
>
> >does that make the other 24 teams' seasons somehow worthless?
>
> not if they are building towards being a serious contender in the future,
which
> clearly, the Wizards are not.
>
> >>Then he trades the best player on the team in a bad trade.
>
> >he didn't trade himself. oh, you mean the second best player? he
basically
> >traded that guy for another player who is more or less his equivalent in
> >production.
>
> and a player that hasnt fit in, so says the media.
and the media are always right. say, shouldn't that operation iraqi freedom
be wrapping up about now? it's almost been two weeks...
> >>He may leave the Wizards a worse team than
> >> when he arrived, as hard as that could be to do.
>
> >how is that hard?
>
> because they sucked so bad before he got there.
>
> >it happens all the time. he already did it with the
> >bulls, magic did it, bird did it, hakeem did it, honestly that's a pretty
> >silly thing to say.
>
> before they got to their teams. Not when they were there. Before. Get
it?
hey look, up there you said:
> >>He may leave the Wizards a worse team than
> >> when he arrived, as hard as that could be to do.
and i said that the lakers in 78-79 were better than than 91-92 lakers. the
celtics in 78-79 were better than the 93-94 celtics. the rockets in 82-83
were better than the 01-02 rockets.
you said it, i showed it to be a dumb thing to say, end of story. let's
move on.
> >>Its great that he wants to play and brought the Wizards some mediocrity
for a
> >>while, but at the cost of their future.
>
> >there you go with that crystal ball again.
>
> refute the claim then. Show me what they have to look forward to. No
crystal
> ball needed to see that they are in trouble.
there's nothing to refute, you're making an unequivocal statement that the
wizaerds have somehow thrown away their future just so jordan can play two
seasons, i'm saying you have no way to be certain where the wizards will be
in 2-5 years. absolutely none. you can make reasoned guesses and
predictions, but you're confusing guesses and predictions with facts, which
you're painfully short of.
> When will Jordan be back for the 4th time? 2005?
i dunno, when will magic be back for the third time? the lakers could use a
PF with passing skills.
RzR
"valid point" really has no meaning on this NG...any opinion that the laker
fans don't agree with, and the guy is an idiot :)
> MJ couldn't even get his team into the finals to face our team at it's
peak. He
> had to wait until Kareem was gone and Magic/Worthy were old before he
could
> win.
>
who's Worthy?
loone...@aol.com
> >
> > >>LoOneYto0n wrote:
> > >>Gone are the drives to the basket and the spectacular moves and dunks.
> > They've >>been replaced by outside shots.
> >
> > >and we all know that unless a player makes spectacular moves and dunks
> he's
> > >not nearly as good as players who do.
> >
> > exactly.
>
> larry bird and john stockton for you on line two.
Harold Minor on line 1 for you. Its called sarcasm.
> > >hey guess what, FG%, FT%, APG, and PPG are all down leaguewide and have
> >been
> > trending down for the last ten years.
> > >time for the league to fold up and go home i guess.
> > from the sound of the Jordan apologists, you'd think that it would be the
> > better idea.
> i have no idea what you're even trying to say here.
well, Jordan is the player that made the NBA in the late 80's and
90's, right? Now that he's in decline, and the rest of the stats are
in decline league wide, might as well fold up the league and go home.
Once he's gone, the league will die anyway according to them. More
sarcasm you missed.
> > >his 3ptFG% is up, his FT% is up, APG and SPG are about the same.
> > In Jordan's 97-98 MVP season, he had one of his lower 3 point percentages,
> the
> > worst free throw shooting year of his career, assists were second lowest
> in his
> > career and his second lowest steals per game in his career at that point.
> You
> > used a rather poor season from Jordan, as far as Jordan's career goes.
> The
> > real question should be how the hell he won the MVP in 97-98? Jordan is
> still
> > down across the board in comparison to his career stats.
> i actually agree with you in regard to the MVP thing--it's not a great
> indicator of who's actually the best player in the league. (iverson is
> excellent proof of that.)
especially since its not even one of Jordan's better years.
> anyway, his career numbers were trending down in the late 90s, but there are
> two good reasons for this. 1) he was getting older and 2) like i said,
> league numbers have been trending downward.
I buy reason #1, but not #2. League trends do not mean that a player
will decline just because the rest of the league as a whole is on the
decline.
> but that was still an excellent season, definitely worthy of top 3
> consideration for MVP that year and not a complete travesty that he won.
yet not one of his better years statistically.
> so i use that season as a basis for comparison because it was his most
> recent, it was deservedly recognized as an excellent season, and we don't
> have as much skew on numbers as we do comparing two different eras of NBA
> basketball--the run and gun 80s and the more defensive minded 90s.
no argument with that.
> > yes, I get the point. You're comparing players with other talent on the
> team
> andre miller and vince carter say hi.
so the Clippers arent talented? A lot of people had them slotted for
a playoff birth this year. You sure talk to a lot of basketball
players.
> > to the Wizards, who have little to nothing. Players have subpar years,
> and the
> > team can still win if they have other talent.
> i'm completely mystified as to how this affects the argument in any way.
me too since I wasnt the one that brought it up.
>i thought we were discussing jordan here, not his teammates.
we were, until you went on a tangent.
> > >>What exactly has Carter done to make a valuable contribution to the
> Craptors? He's
> > >> played 38 games this season and they're on their way to the lotttery.
>
> > >so he should retire?
> > no, he should get healthy. He produces when he's healthy.
> okay. get healthy, vince.
yep, get healthy Vince, or retire.
> > irrelevant. I'm talking about what a player produces when he does play.
> and i'm talking about NBA basketball here in the real world, where, when
> shaquille o'neal misses substantial time, the lakers have so much money, cap
> space, and team strategy invested in a player who is sitting on the bench
> that they go 5-10 in his absence.
we were talking about an individual player, not the real world of NBA
basketball. You do like to deviate off the topic.
> see, you still don't know it. you want to criticize jordan because his
> production is down from his career best,
no no no, I criticized Jordan because he was down from his career
*averages*, not his career best. If you're going to break down my
statements, at least know what the discussion is, please.
>yet it's okay that shaq's production is down from his career best
because in the games in which he
> does show up to play, he's still averaging 85-90 percent of his career best
> averages. hypocrisy.
if I were saying this, I would be a hypocrite. Shaq is around his
career averages right now. The only thing that is down a bit more
than average is rebounds. Something that could become a conern soon.
We likely have already seen Shaq's best years.
> > >and just a couple paragraphs before you were going on about how since
> carter
> had
> > >missed a bunch of his teams game he was helping lead his team to the
> > >lottery.
> > Carter has missed 46.4% of his teams's games. Shaq has missed 20.8%.
> what's the magic number then before players should retire?
dunno, since you've misinterpreted the rest of my statements, you tell
me. To me, helping a team to the lottery because you're injured
doesnt mean the player is in decline and has no relevance to
retirement. It means he's injured and hurt the team by not being able
to play, but it doesnt mean his skills have declined.
>it must be somewhere between 20.8 percent and 33 percent, you were
criticizing jordan
> for being off "33 percent."
must be, even though it has nothing to do with what Ive said.
> Shaq's team is making the playoffs, Carter's isnt.
> we're talking about individual players here, not teams, so making the
> playoffs isn't a great benchmark of anything.
stop stealing my argument. Its not like Shaq had anything to do with
the Lakers making the playoffs and Vince's injury being the reason
that the Raptors didnt.
> >They've also won less
> > games percentage wise than over the previous 3 seasons with Shaq in the
> lineup.
> > Its not due to his lower stats though as much as the team not playing as
> well.
> > It still has nothing to do with diminished skills.
> skills are worthless when they're sitting on the bench in street clothes.
but irrelevant in discussions about whether a player's skills have
diminshed. The skills are still there, the player is just hurt and
can't show them. It doesnt mean the skills are gone forever in most
cases.
> antonio mcdyess is among the most skilled players in the league and his
> value has been exactly zero to the knickis this season--actually, worse than
> zero since they still have to pay him and he takes up cap space.
yet the skills will return providing McDyess can ever be healthy
enough to play again. Jordan's skills are diminishing and he is
playing. If you'd ask who I'd rahter have right now, Id pick Jordan
because he's healthy and McDyess is not. If they were both healthy,
that wouldnt be the case.
> he's still efficient compared to when he was one of the top three players in
> the league, yes.
yet those stats are still below his averages.
> > there's no reason to look at it that way, I already told you.
> yes there is. averages are only useful if you're not selectively ignoring
> salient information. here you want to say shaq's production has been just
> as good as ever
no, as his averages.
>while ignoring the fact that by missing 80 percent of the
> team's games, he's given the lakers (at best) only 80 percent of what he has
> in the past.
he's giving the Lakers 100% of his average when he's there 80% of the
time. Jordan's giving the team 75% of his average when he's there
100% of the time. Jordan is 75% of the player when he plays, and Shaq
is 100% of the player when he plays. It means Shaq is still at 100%
of his average, and Jordan is at 75% percent of his average. Take it
as you want, this is how I see it. Injuries are part of the game and
of course you get 0% of the average when they don't play, but I'm
talking about their skills when they do play.
> If he would have
> > played 82 games, they would have projected out the same way.
>
> sure, that's extremely useful to know. now explain to me how that helped
> the lakers in those games where they went 5-10 without him and still had to
> pay his salary.
of course he didnt help, I never said he did. It still has nothing to
do with his production level when he's playing.
> That's why they
> > are averages. Its amazing how people always use a players worst year to
> > compare a player favorably, then try to take any stat they can find to
> tear a
> > player down.
>
> now you're just making stuff up. this isn't even close to shaq's worst
> year, and i'm using this year because it's most recent.
no, 97-98 was likely Jordan's worst year before his comeback. That
was what I was talking about. You said you used it because it was his
last year before the retirement. I said above that I can see now why
you used it, but it was still his one of his worst years, if not the
worst.
>amd 97-98 wasn't even close to jordan's worst year.
take a look and tell me what year was worse statistically then.
> You dont just give a player zeros in games they do not play in for
> > individual stats.
> oh yeah, that's right, when shaq sits out a game, the lakers get spotted 28
> points, 11 rebounds, 3 assists, and 2.5 blocks. now how does that work?
try looking at averages sometime. A player that doesnt play does not
get zeros added in to their averages for that game. I am talking
individual stats, and you're arguing what the team has to make up when
he isnt there. No kidding they have to make that up, but it doesnt
affect the *individual* statistics per game for that player. We're
not even talking the same thing.
> > incorrect. It means he's producing at 100% of his ability, but that he
> only
> > played in 80% of the games. It doesnt mean he played at less than 100% of
> his
> > ability.
> sure it does. hey, at that rate, if shaq sits out the rest of the season
> with a knee injury, the lakers will still win the champiosnhip, after all,
> he'll be producting at 100 percent ability.
what part of "in the games that he played" did you miss?
> > >so tell me, since shaq's aggregate production has only been about 70-75
> > >percent this season compared to his career best, where is the line below
> > >which you're going to call for him to retire? when it dips below the
> magic
> > >67 percent mark?
> > I dont buy into your aggregate production bullshit, sorry.
> of course not. you'd rather stick your fingers in your ears and say
> "lalalalala i can't hear you."
so because I dont buy your line of bullshit, Im ignoring it? He's
still around 100% of his averages when he plays. That means his
skills havent diminished when he plays. Since I was talking about
declining skills, aggregate production isnt relevant because everyone
knows that aggregate production will be down if the player doesnt
play. But we can discuss the semantics all day long, since you've
already gone off topic on everything else.
> > >> >second, from a business standpoint, MJ is helping the league, his
> team,
> and
> > >> >his franchise earn a ton more revenue.
>
> > >> and that's relevant to the discussion for what reason?
>
> > >because you're saying he should retire
> > no, I said he shouldn't have come back in the first place.
> hey, let's play "fun with semantics."
no, lets get it correct. If Jordan never came back, none of the
business aspect would matter because it would have never happened.
Again, why is money relevant to the discussion of whether a players
skills have diminished?
> i'm bringing it up because it *is* part of the discussion.
no, its not. It has no bearing on whether a player's skills have
diminished to the point where they should or shouldnt have returned to
the game.
>what, you thought the NBA's sole purpose was to entertain you and
your friends?
I thought that was the entire purpose of the NBA. If its not
entertaining, no one would pay to go watch it. More sarcasm in case
you dont grasp it.
> > >>Its a sad state the NBA is in if he's got to come back to save it and
> the
> > Wizards >>as a team.
> > >actually, the team was profitable without him playing, they're just
> making a
> > >ton more money with him on the team. so that's not "saving" that's
> "making
> > >more valuable." see, there's a difference.
> > I meant saving them in a basketball standpoint, not monetarily. I dont
> get
> > into the finances of the NBA, that doesnt need saving.
> so it's a sad state that NBA has bad teams that need on-the-court saving?
when a 39 year old has to come in and try to be the savior, that is
indeed sad. When a team can't draft for shit, trades their better
players and is a perennial loser, that is sad. In case you missed it,
attendance is down is quite a few arenas. TV viewership is down.
>i guess we better try to bring the parity level up in the league, all
those 55
> and 60 win teams are beating up on hapless losers and killing the league.
take a look at some numbers sometime and you just might see it
differently. 20+ teams don't have a shot at a title before the season
even begins. 10 of them have no shot at the playoffs. I'm not for
parity, but teams that have shown that they cant be competitive need
some kind of help.
> > >>The Wizards are going to be in just as sad shape, if not worse than ever
> when
> > >>he finally does leave. They traded Hamilton for Stackhouse, who may
> leave
>
> > >and hamilton may leave detroit, so what's your point?
> >
> > that they'll have nothing to show for trading their best player, and the
> rest
> > of their team is basically shit.
>
> so aside from two players, their team sucks. how is this different from the
> lakers?
oh wow, you got me there. No difference. Other than the fact that
after this year the Wizards likely wont have either of the 2 players,
its the exact same thing.
> Stackhouse played like crap this year, and
> > from reports he's not happy and Washington isnt happy with him.
> are those kind of like those reports that say that kobe is going to opt out
> of his contract and demand a sign-and-trade next season?
yep, the same ones that say he'll opt out and go to the Wizards.
Usually they arent reported in newspapers and on ESPN though like the
Stackhouse rumors have.
> > no, Im saying they shouldn't have traded their best player, then gotten 2
> high
> > lottery picks last year and this year, and the franchise might have some
> > direction.
>
> you mean tank and get high picks like, say the number 1 pick? i mean, that
> would be a sure fix.
wow, no team has never tanked before, have they? Cleveland isnt
tanking now, are they? Miami isnt either. Without Jordan the team
wouldnt have needed to tank it. They were terrible enough to have the
#1 pick and waste that on Kwame Brown before Jordan got there.
> Caron Butler or Amare Stoudemire would have been a nice fit for
> > the Wizards last year.
> i'm sure you had caron and amare listed as the 2nd and 3rd pick on your
> pre-draft lineup.
nope, they went 10th and 9th respectively. That means if Washington
would have sucked a little more last year that both players would have
been available at #9. Some analysts had Butler in the 4-8 spot, that
means the Wizards didnt have to get the top pick to get a good player,
just a little worse than they were.
> Instead, they trade their best young player, add a 39
> > year old, and finish mediocre enough that they dont pick up a player that
> can
> > be an impact player down the road.
> michael finley, steve nash, and tony parker holding for you, line three.
how many phone lines do you have? Thanks for naming 3 players out of
hundreds that turned out to be good players drafted in the mid first
round or later. I wont bore you by going back to list the many busts
found after #10. Kobe was a #13 pick I believe. They still were not
able to pick up impact players down the road. Hell, they even failed
with the #1 pick.
> > >> and that has nothing to do with his basketball skills. I didnt say it
> wasnt a
> > >> smart business move for him to play.
> > >no, you just said he should have stayed retired.
> > yet I never said it wasnt a smart business move for him to play, did I?
> Its
> > just my opinion that he should have stayed retired. I dont recall giving
> any
> > reasons why.
> wouldn't want those. "i believe it because i say so."
damn right ya do.
> > >> ok... exactly how did he enrich the value of the team once he leaves?
>
> > >oh what, you mean the bulls continued selling out united center for two
> full
> > >seasons after jordan left?
> >
> > we'll see what happens. Jordan did just a bit more for the Bulls than he
> did
> > for the Wizards. I dont know how well the Wizards attendance was before
> > Jordan. It will likely be back to that within a half a season after
> Jordan
> > leaves.
> i thought you had this all figured out, now you say "we'll see..." what
> gives?
shall I change it to "you'll see" so that you can move on? I've got
it all figured out, you'll watch it happen and then claim you knew it
all along.
They may not even make the playoffs in the Leastern Conference
> and
> how
> > >> are they going to be worth more when they return to the high lottery
> draft
> > >> picks once Jordan is gone?
>
> > >i already explained it, let's see if you can figure it out.
> >
> > I figured it, just dont agree with it.
> "lalalalala i can't hear you."
again, just because I do not agree with you doesn't mean I dont hear
what you're saying. Just because you do things like that doesnt mean
I do it the same way.
> > >or there's the flip side to this opinion, and that is by making them a
> > >better team and showing them what it means to fight for a playoff berth,
> > >they will be better players and a better team in the long run.
> >
> > without their 2 top players and a mid first round pick? Good luck.
> they've been clearing cap room for a couple seasons now, i imagine they'll
> look to upgrade via a FA just as much as they will with the draft.
who's going to want to play for the Wizards minus their top 2 players?
Yes, Im sure a player will sign there for max money if they cant find
it elsewhere, but San Antonio has a max contract available, Denver has
2 I believe and a few other teams have room for a max contract as well
as others with some room. What makes the Wizards a place a free agent
would choose? They may end up overpaying to add someone that may not
even get them back to where they are this year.
> > and a player that hasnt fit in, so says the media.
> and the media are always right. say, shouldn't that operation iraqi freedom
> be wrapping up about now? it's almost been two weeks...
nah, maybe if you went over there and discussed them to death it may
be over sooner. It wasnt the media that underestimated Iraq, it was
the US military. Read some of what the generals have to say sometime.
Can you possibly drag this a little more off topic?
> > >>Its great that he wants to play and brought the Wizards some mediocrity
> for a
> > >>while, but at the cost of their future.
> > >there you go with that crystal ball again.
> > refute the claim then. Show me what they have to look forward to. No
> crystal
> > ball needed to see that they are in trouble.
> there's nothing to refute, you're making an unequivocal statement that the
> wizards have somehow thrown away their future just so jordan can play two
> seasons,
they traded their best young player and lost 2 higher first round
draft choices as a result of Jordan coming back to play. That has
already cost them the future. Instead of drafting 1-8 this season,
they'll be around 11-14ish. They traded away their future 2 years
ago. So there is no crystal ball necessary. Jordan coming to the
Wizards cost them the shot to rebuild faster. They are going to have
to rebuild again when he leaves.
>i'm saying you have no way to be certain where the wizards will be
> in 2-5 years. absolutely none.
and Im not arguing that. Im arguing what he already cost the team.
>you can make reasoned guesses and
> predictions, but you're confusing guesses and predictions with facts, which
> you're painfully short of.
nope, just going on what has already happened to the team. Answer me
this: are the Wizards going to have to start rebuilding all over
again after this year? What players do they have to build the team
around? Is it a fact that they have to start rebuilding?
> > When will Jordan be back for the 4th time? 2005?
> i dunno, when will magic be back for the third time? the lakers could use a
> PF with passing skills.
so could the Wizards for that matter.
brink
<loone...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7ff76820.03033...@posting.google.com...
> "brink" wrote:
> > >
> > > >>LoOneYto0n wrote:
>
> > > >>Gone are the drives to the basket and the spectacular moves and
dunks.
> > > They've >>been replaced by outside shots.
> > >
> > > >and we all know that unless a player makes spectacular moves and
dunks
> > he's
> > > >not nearly as good as players who do.
> > >
> > > exactly.
> >
> > larry bird and john stockton for you on line two.
>
> Harold Minor on line 1 for you. Its called sarcasm.
sorry, my sarcasmometer is broken, it should be fixed by the weekend though.
> > > >hey guess what, FG%, FT%, APG, and PPG are all down leaguewide and
have
> > >been
> > > trending down for the last ten years.
> > > >time for the league to fold up and go home i guess.
>
> > > from the sound of the Jordan apologists, you'd think that it would be
the
> > > better idea.
>
> > i have no idea what you're even trying to say here.
>
> well, Jordan is the player that made the NBA in the late 80's and
> 90's, right? Now that he's in decline, and the rest of the stats are
> in decline league wide, might as well fold up the league and go home.
> Once he's gone, the league will die anyway according to them.
big deal, there will always be people who will say crap like that and i'm
sure not saying it. the league will be fine without him.
More
> sarcasm you missed.
>
> > > >his 3ptFG% is up, his FT% is up, APG and SPG are about the same.
>
> > > In Jordan's 97-98 MVP season, he had one of his lower 3 point
percentages,
> > the
> > > worst free throw shooting year of his career, assists were second
lowest
> > in his
> > > career and his second lowest steals per game in his career at that
point.
> > You
> > > used a rather poor season from Jordan, as far as Jordan's career goes.
> > The
> > > real question should be how the hell he won the MVP in 97-98? Jordan
is
> > still
> > > down across the board in comparison to his career stats.
>
> > i actually agree with you in regard to the MVP thing--it's not a great
> > indicator of who's actually the best player in the league. (iverson is
> > excellent proof of that.)
>
> especially since its not even one of Jordan's better years.
but MVP isn't relative to a player's best years, it's relative to how other
players performed that season, another reason why it's not a great indicator
of anything. ironically a player can have a historic season and lose the
award and then turn around and win it the next season while playing much
worse. it all depends on how well other players play and the whims of the
voters.
> > anyway, his career numbers were trending down in the late 90s, but there
are
> > two good reasons for this. 1) he was getting older and 2) like i said,
> > league numbers have been trending downward.
>
> I buy reason #1, but not #2. League trends do not mean that a player
> will decline just because the rest of the league as a whole is on the
> decline.
sure they do, what, you think players play in a vacuum? game pace has
slowed since the 80s which means fewer scoring opportunities in the first
place--that's why scoring, assists, and rebounding (to some extent) are down
across the board. also, FG percentages have been declining, most likely due
to a greater emphasis put on stopping the other team rather than just trying
to outscore them. to me, the turning point was the back-to-back
championships won by the pistons in 89 and 90, and gradually we've seen
defenses become more sophisticated and intense as more championships are won
by teams with great defenses and great half-court offenses rather than
"showtime" run-and-gun.
> > but that was still an excellent season, definitely worthy of top 3
> > consideration for MVP that year and not a complete travesty that he won.
>
> yet not one of his better years statistically.
it was great enough to be in the top 1 percent of the league that season,
wow he sucked.
> > so i use that season as a basis for comparison because it was his most
> > recent, it was deservedly recognized as an excellent season, and we
don't
> > have as much skew on numbers as we do comparing two different eras of
NBA
> > basketball--the run and gun 80s and the more defensive minded 90s.
>
> no argument with that.
>
> > > yes, I get the point. You're comparing players with other talent on
the
> > team
>
> > andre miller and vince carter say hi.
>
> so the Clippers arent talented?
sure they're talented, so are the nuggets and the heat and the cavaliers.
look, the cavs in fact have an all-star center, a player who avearges 24/5/4
and a rookie-of-the-year candidate.
but there's a difference between talent and *talent that helps a team win*.
A lot of people had them slotted for
> a playoff birth this year.
kind of sad, really. you get your hopes up for that team and then...
sigh...
You sure talk to a lot of basketball
> players.
>
> > > to the Wizards, who have little to nothing. Players have subpar
years,
> > and the
> > > team can still win if they have other talent.
>
> > i'm completely mystified as to how this affects the argument in any way.
>
> me too since I wasnt the one that brought it up.
>
> >i thought we were discussing jordan here, not his teammates.
>
> we were, until you went on a tangent.
i brought up other players because, if your logic is sound, it shouldn't
apply to just one player you select at will. if being a "player in decline"
from his best years defines a player that should be retired, then there are
dozens of other players around the league who are still excellent players
who, by your logic, should leave the game.
you don't get to apply your set of criteria to just one player and then say
"no, it doens't count for those other guys."
> > > >>What exactly has Carter done to make a valuable contribution to the
> > Craptors? He's
> > > >> played 38 games this season and they're on their way to the
lotttery.
> >
> > > >so he should retire?
>
> > > no, he should get healthy. He produces when he's healthy.
>
> > okay. get healthy, vince.
>
> yep, get healthy Vince, or retire.
>
> > > irrelevant. I'm talking about what a player produces when he does
play.
>
> > and i'm talking about NBA basketball here in the real world, where, when
> > shaquille o'neal misses substantial time, the lakers have so much money,
cap
> > space, and team strategy invested in a player who is sitting on the
bench
> > that they go 5-10 in his absence.
>
> we were talking about an individual player, not the real world of NBA
> basketball. You do like to deviate off the topic.
oh, this is too hilarious. please tell me your're being facetious here.
please.
> > see, you still don't know it. you want to criticize jordan because his
> > production is down from his career best,
>
> no no no, I criticized Jordan because he was down from his career
> *averages*, not his career best. If you're going to break down my
> statements, at least know what the discussion is, please.
sure, and i showed how averages are worthless without taking a lot of other
information into consideration. they become trivia--facts devoid of
context.
seriously, i would have much less of a problem with your criticsim of jordan
if you wouldn't selectively apply that criticism only to him and then ignore
it in the case of shaq.
> >yet it's okay that shaq's production is down from his career best
> because in the games in which he
> > does show up to play, he's still averaging 85-90 percent of his career
best
> > averages. hypocrisy.
>
> if I were saying this, I would be a hypocrite. Shaq is around his
> career averages right now. The only thing that is down a bit more
> than average is rebounds. Something that could become a conern soon.
> We likely have already seen Shaq's best years.
his scoring and FG% are down too, but his FT% is up and his PFs are down.
the latter two really help compensate for his decreased efficiency from the
field, you might say he's playing smarter rather than harder, which is a
good thing for the most part in an older player.
> > > >and just a couple paragraphs before you were going on about how since
> > carter
> > had
> > > >missed a bunch of his teams game he was helping lead his team to the
> > > >lottery.
>
> > > Carter has missed 46.4% of his teams's games. Shaq has missed 20.8%.
>
> > what's the magic number then before players should retire?
>
> dunno, since you've misinterpreted the rest of my statements, you tell
> me. To me, helping a team to the lottery because you're injured
> doesnt mean the player is in decline and has no relevance to
> retirement. It means he's injured and hurt the team by not being able
> to play, but it doesnt mean his skills have declined.
"looney, please pick up a white courtesy phone, there's a mr. grant hill
paging you."
> >it must be somewhere between 20.8 percent and 33 percent, you were
> criticizing jordan
> > for being off "33 percent."
>
> must be, even though it has nothing to do with what Ive said.
but you did actually, and you don't even know it.
> > Shaq's team is making the playoffs, Carter's isnt.
>
> > we're talking about individual players here, not teams, so making the
> > playoffs isn't a great benchmark of anything.
>
> stop stealing my argument. Its not like Shaq had anything to do with
> the Lakers making the playoffs and Vince's injury being the reason
> that the Raptors didnt.
sure, they're part of the reasons each team is where it's at, just not the
whole reason, so not a good way to look at player value. if team record or
playoff seeding indicates player value, then divac > shaq.
> > >They've also won less
> > > games percentage wise than over the previous 3 seasons with Shaq in
the
> > lineup.
> > > Its not due to his lower stats though as much as the team not playing
as
> > well.
> > > It still has nothing to do with diminished skills.
>
> > skills are worthless when they're sitting on the bench in street
clothes.
>
> but irrelevant in discussions about whether a player's skills have
> diminshed. The skills are still there, the player is just hurt and
> can't show them. It doesnt mean the skills are gone forever in most
> cases.
what, you mean like a skill that would enable a player to shoot 45 percent
from the field, score 20 points a game, skills like that? because those
sure aren't valuable in today's NBA.
> > antonio mcdyess is among the most skilled players in the league and his
> > value has been exactly zero to the knickis this season--actually, worse
than
> > zero since they still have to pay him and he takes up cap space.
>
> yet the skills will return providing McDyess can ever be healthy
> enough to play again.
there, you're almost getting it. "provided" is the key word in that
sentence. think of grant hill, jayson williams, charles barkley, ad
nauseam...
Jordan's skills are diminishing and he is
> playing.
shaq's skills are diminishing and he is playing.
If you'd ask who I'd rahter have right now, Id pick Jordan
> because he's healthy and McDyess is not. If they were both healthy,
> that wouldnt be the case.
"if."
>
> > he's still efficient compared to when he was one of the top three
players in
> > the league, yes.
>
> yet those stats are still below his averages.
shaq's stats are below his averages.
> > > there's no reason to look at it that way, I already told you.
>
> > yes there is. averages are only useful if you're not selectively
ignoring
> > salient information. here you want to say shaq's production has been
just
> > as good as ever
>
> no, as his averages.
trivia.
> >while ignoring the fact that by missing 80 percent of the
> > team's games, he's given the lakers (at best) only 80 percent of what he
has
> > in the past.
>
> he's giving the Lakers 100% of his average when he's there 80% of the
> time.
no, he's giving them 85-90 perecent of his average while he's there 80
percent of the time.
Jordan's giving the team 75% of his average when he's there
> 100% of the time.
80 percent of shaq's 90 percent production is lower than jordan's 100
percent of his 75 percent production.
Jordan is 75% of the player when he plays, and Shaq
> is 100% of the player when he plays. It means Shaq is still at 100%
> of his average, and Jordan is at 75% percent of his average. Take it
> as you want, this is how I see it. Injuries are part of the game and
> of course you get 0% of the average when they don't play, but I'm
> talking about their skills when they do play.
sure. it's kind of like all that "talent" the clippers possess. say, how
far do you think they'll make it in the POs this year?
> > If he would have
> > > played 82 games, they would have projected out the same way.
> >
> > sure, that's extremely useful to know. now explain to me how that
helped
> > the lakers in those games where they went 5-10 without him and still had
to
> > pay his salary.
>
> of course he didnt help, I never said he did. It still has nothing to
> do with his production level when he's playing.
yet the team doesn't get to wait for him to get better, they've gotta keep
playing without him.
> > That's why they
> > > are averages. Its amazing how people always use a players worst year
to
> > > compare a player favorably, then try to take any stat they can find to
> > tear a
> > > player down.
> >
> > now you're just making stuff up. this isn't even close to shaq's worst
> > year, and i'm using this year because it's most recent.
>
> no, 97-98 was likely Jordan's worst year before his comeback.
nope, that would be 85-86 or 94-95, take your pick, they're about the same.
That
> was what I was talking about. You said you used it because it was his
> last year before the retirement. I said above that I can see now why
> you used it, but it was still his one of his worst years, if not the
> worst.
not even close.
> >amd 97-98 wasn't even close to jordan's worst year.
>
> take a look and tell me what year was worse statistically then.
if you can't see it by now, then i can't help you.
> > You dont just give a player zeros in games they do not play in for
> > > individual stats.
>
> > oh yeah, that's right, when shaq sits out a game, the lakers get spotted
28
> > points, 11 rebounds, 3 assists, and 2.5 blocks. now how does that work?
>
> try looking at averages sometime. A player that doesnt play does not
> get zeros added in to their averages for that game.
hilarious. you want to keep peering at the issue through your little
peephole when we've got all this other information relevant to the issue.
i explained why averages are worthless when it translates to player value
for the team when a player is injured, limited, or sitting on the bench and
surprise, you ignored it.
I am talking
> individual stats, and you're arguing what the team has to make up when
> he isnt there. No kidding they have to make that up, but it doesnt
> affect the *individual* statistics per game for that player. We're
> not even talking the same thing.
sure we are, we're talking about what stats are supposed to represent:
actual player value. it's just that you're cherry picking stats at will and
then trying to exclude the stats that hurt your argument. this is how
closed-minded people reason.
> > > incorrect. It means he's producing at 100% of his ability, but that
he
> > only
> > > played in 80% of the games. It doesnt mean he played at less than
100% of
> > his
> > > ability.
>
> > sure it does. hey, at that rate, if shaq sits out the rest of the
season
> > with a knee injury, the lakers will still win the champiosnhip, after
all,
> > he'll be producting at 100 percent ability.
>
> what part of "in the games that he played" did you miss?
oh, this is fun. you said:
"It doesnt mean he played at less than 100% of his ability."
i already showed how 90 percent (shaq's averages this season relative to
career best) multiplied times 80 percent (games played) equals 72 percent
player value for the team.
72% < 100%
> > > >so tell me, since shaq's aggregate production has only been about
70-75
> > > >percent this season compared to his career best, where is the line
below
> > > >which you're going to call for him to retire? when it dips below the
> > magic
> > > >67 percent mark?
>
> > > I dont buy into your aggregate production bullshit, sorry.
>
> > of course not. you'd rather stick your fingers in your ears and say
> > "lalalalala i can't hear you."
>
> so because I dont buy your line of bullshit, Im ignoring it?
well, we have two options:
1) you're willfully ignoring it because you'd rather "win" an argument than
be right
2) you're an idiot, and i don't mean it as an insult. i mean it in the
psychological diagnosis sense of the word.
He's
> still around 100% of his averages when he plays. That means his
> skills havent diminished when he plays. Since I was talking about
> declining skills, aggregate production isnt relevant because everyone
> knows that aggregate production will be down if the player doesnt
> play. But we can discuss the semantics all day long, since you've
> already gone off topic on everything else.
sure, "semantics," it's easy to dismiss everyone else's reasoning, they're
just going "off topic."
it's much better to throw around trivia and ignore important facts.
> > > >> >second, from a business standpoint, MJ is helping the league, his
> > team,
> > and
> > > >> >his franchise earn a ton more revenue.
> >
> > > >> and that's relevant to the discussion for what reason?
> >
> > > >because you're saying he should retire
>
> > > no, I said he shouldn't have come back in the first place.
>
> > hey, let's play "fun with semantics."
>
> no, lets get it correct. If Jordan never came back, none of the
> business aspect would matter because it would have never happened.
> Again, why is money relevant to the discussion of whether a players
> skills have diminished?
you were the one that said jordan should be retired and your only reason is
that his skills have diminished. i've given three good reasons in reply why
he shouldn't be retired, among them this one. you can limit the discussion
to teh asthetic merits of basketball all you want, have fun with that. i'm
looking at this from a broader perspective cause--hey guess what--the NBA is
a business first and believe it or not, that's how most decisions get made
in the league.
> > i'm bringing it up because it *is* part of the discussion.
>
> no, its not. It has no bearing on whether a player's skills have
> diminished to the point where they should or shouldnt have returned to
> the game.
right. you've arbitrarily decided that all discussion must center solely
around this one criterion that you've chosen and all other aspects of the
situation must be ignored because you say so. furthermore, you want to
selectyively apply that criterion to one player in particular and not on
others, again because appartenltly you're more interested in wanting
something to be true than it actually being true.
> >what, you thought the NBA's sole purpose was to entertain you and
> your friends?
>
> I thought that was the entire purpose of the NBA. If its not
> entertaining, no one would pay to go watch it.
bingo. hey look, money does have soemthing to do with this equation after
all.
More sarcasm in case
> you dont grasp it.
>
> > > >>Its a sad state the NBA is in if he's got to come back to save it
and
> > the
> > > Wizards >>as a team.
>
> > > >actually, the team was profitable without him playing, they're just
> > making a
> > > >ton more money with him on the team. so that's not "saving" that's
> > "making
> > > >more valuable." see, there's a difference.
>
> > > I meant saving them in a basketball standpoint, not monetarily. I
dont
> > get
> > > into the finances of the NBA, that doesnt need saving.
>
> > so it's a sad state that NBA has bad teams that need on-the-court
saving?
>
> when a 39 year old has to come in and try to be the savior, that is
> indeed sad.
oh, the ultimate sin, that jordan is *old*, how dare he. i mean, it's much
better for a 24-year-old player to come play for a team because... well,
because you say so.
When a team can't draft for shit, trades their better
> players and is a perennial loser, that is sad. In case you missed it,
> attendance is down is quite a few arenas. TV viewership is down.
hey look, you're unwittingly proving my point again. guess which team leads
the league in road attendance while selling out all its home games and
getting above average ratings for its national telecasts.
> >i guess we better try to bring the parity level up in the league, all
> those 55
> > and 60 win teams are beating up on hapless losers and killing the
league.
>
> take a look at some numbers sometime and you just might see it
> differently. 20+ teams don't have a shot at a title before the season
> even begins. 10 of them have no shot at the playoffs. I'm not for
> parity, but teams that have shown that they cant be competitive need
> some kind of help.
it's actually way too easy to make the playoffs, especially in the eastern
conference these days. more than half the teams in teh entire league make
the postseason and you've got two teams with losing records fighting it out
over the 8th spot in the east. so as for your argument that 10 teams have
no shot at the playoffs before the season begins, which ones would those
have been? you already said that the clippers were supposed to contend, so
they aren't one of them.
> > > >>The Wizards are going to be in just as sad shape, if not worse than
ever
> > when
> > > >>he finally does leave. They traded Hamilton for Stackhouse, who may
> > leave
> >
> > > >and hamilton may leave detroit, so what's your point?
> > >
> > > that they'll have nothing to show for trading their best player, and
the
> > rest
> > > of their team is basically shit.
> >
> > so aside from two players, their team sucks. how is this different from
the
> > lakers?
>
> oh wow, you got me there. No difference. Other than the fact that
> after this year the Wizards likely wont have either of the 2 players,
> its the exact same thing.
i'm still wondering what the stackhouse for hamilton trade has to do with
jordan staying in retirement.
> > Stackhouse played like crap this year, and
> > > from reports he's not happy and Washington isnt happy with him.
>
> > are those kind of like those reports that say that kobe is going to opt
out
> > of his contract and demand a sign-and-trade next season?
>
> yep, the same ones that say he'll opt out and go to the Wizards.
> Usually they arent reported in newspapers and on ESPN though like the
> Stackhouse rumors have.
yep. like the rumors that duncan would leave SA for orlando and ho grant
was sure to join the lakers this season. done deals.
> > > no, Im saying they shouldn't have traded their best player, then
gotten 2
> > high
> > > lottery picks last year and this year, and the franchise might have
some
> > > direction.
> >
> > you mean tank and get high picks like, say the number 1 pick? i mean,
that
> > would be a sure fix.
>
> wow, no team has never tanked before, have they?
you missed the point.
the wizards had the number one pick a whole two seasons ago.
there's a difference between having a high pick and vastly improving your
team through the draft. there are no guarantees: sam bowie, len bias,
michael olowokandi... ad nauseam.
Cleveland isnt
> tanking now, are they? Miami isnt either. Without Jordan the team
> wouldnt have needed to tank it. They were terrible enough to have the
> #1 pick and waste that on Kwame Brown before Jordan got there.
quick, how many times in the past 10 years has the worst team gotten the
number one pick?
> > Caron Butler or Amare Stoudemire would have been a nice fit for
> > > the Wizards last year.
>
> > i'm sure you had caron and amare listed as the 2nd and 3rd pick on your
> > pre-draft lineup.
>
> nope, they went 10th and 9th respectively.
like i said, i'm sure you had them listed as the 2nd and 3rd best players in
teh draft, how they're playing as the season has gone on isn't coloring your
perception in any way.
That means if Washington
> would have sucked a little more last year that both players would have
> been available at #9.
so which one would they have taken and how do you know this for sure?
Some analysts had Butler in the 4-8 spot, that
> means the Wizards didnt have to get the top pick to get a good player,
> just a little worse than they were.
drafting sure is easy nine months after the draft itself.
>
> > Instead, they trade their best young player, add a 39
> > > year old, and finish mediocre enough that they dont pick up a player
that
> > can
> > > be an impact player down the road.
>
> > michael finley, steve nash, and tony parker holding for you, line three.
>
> how many phone lines do you have? Thanks for naming 3 players out of
> hundreds that turned out to be good players drafted in the mid first
> round or later.
you were the one that said that they picked up players that can't be impact
players down the road, which of course you don't know for sure, you guess so
but it's far from fact.
enough GMs passed on the three players i named to make them look stupid in
hindsight. but that's just it--hindsight makes everyone look stupid from
time to time, even jerry west.
I wont bore you by going back to list the many busts
> found after #10.
no, there aren't any busts 1-10, all great players.
Kobe was a #13 pick I believe. They still were not
> able to pick up impact players down the road. Hell, they even failed
> with the #1 pick.
he sure hasn't looked good, but he is only 20. i agree not a good pick
because they needed help this season more than anything but still too early
to give up on him.
who did you have listed as your number one pick in the 2001 draft?
> > > >> and that has nothing to do with his basketball skills. I didnt say
it
> > wasnt a
> > > >> smart business move for him to play.
>
> > > >no, you just said he should have stayed retired.
>
> > > yet I never said it wasnt a smart business move for him to play, did
I?
> > Its
> > > just my opinion that he should have stayed retired. I dont recall
giving
> > any
> > > reasons why.
>
> > wouldn't want those. "i believe it because i say so."
>
> damn right ya do.
you've given one reason for why he should be retired, i answered with three
reasons he shouldnt plus showed that your one reason is hypocritical. so
now you're just lying about what i've said.
> > > >> ok... exactly how did he enrich the value of the team once he
leaves?
> >
> > > >oh what, you mean the bulls continued selling out united center for
two
> > full
> > > >seasons after jordan left?
> > >
> > > we'll see what happens. Jordan did just a bit more for the Bulls than
he
> > did
> > > for the Wizards. I dont know how well the Wizards attendance was
before
> > > Jordan. It will likely be back to that within a half a season after
> > Jordan
> > > leaves.
>
> > i thought you had this all figured out, now you say "we'll see..." what
> > gives?
>
> shall I change it to "you'll see" so that you can move on? I've got
> it all figured out, you'll watch it happen and then claim you knew it
> all along.
it's amazing how you can ignore all this evidence. you say jordan won't
have enriched the team once he leaves, i show how he will have through
ongoing licensing and ticket sales. you say that attendance will drop
within half a season and i show how that didn't even come close to happening
when he left before and the team sucked. you say the sun isn't shining and
i point up to that big hot yellow ball of fire in the sky.
> They may not even make the playoffs in the Leastern Conference
> > and
> > how
> > > >> are they going to be worth more when they return to the high
lottery
> > draft
> > > >> picks once Jordan is gone?
> >
> > > >i already explained it, let's see if you can figure it out.
> > >
> > > I figured it, just dont agree with it.
>
> > "lalalalala i can't hear you."
>
> again, just because I do not agree with you doesn't mean I dont hear
> what you're saying. Just because you do things like that doesnt mean
> I do it the same way.
yep. and just because you don't believe in gravity doesn't mean you'll fly
if you jump off a building.
> > > >or there's the flip side to this opinion, and that is by making them
a
> > > >better team and showing them what it means to fight for a playoff
berth,
> > > >they will be better players and a better team in the long run.
> > >
> > > without their 2 top players and a mid first round pick? Good luck.
>
> > they've been clearing cap room for a couple seasons now, i imagine
they'll
> > look to upgrade via a FA just as much as they will with the draft.
>
> who's going to want to play for the Wizards minus their top 2 players?
> Yes, Im sure a player will sign there for max money if they cant find
> it elsewhere, but San Antonio has a max contract available, Denver has
> 2 I believe and a few other teams have room for a max contract as well
> as others with some room. What makes the Wizards a place a free agent
> would choose? They may end up overpaying to add someone that may not
> even get them back to where they are this year.
hey look, two "may"s in one sentence, yep, looks like you're doing more
speculating and trying to use it as fact.
> > > and a player that hasnt fit in, so says the media.
>
> > and the media are always right. say, shouldn't that operation iraqi
freedom
> > be wrapping up about now? it's almost been two weeks...
>
> nah, maybe if you went over there and discussed them to death it may
> be over sooner. It wasnt the media that underestimated Iraq, it was
> the US military. Read some of what the generals have to say sometime.
> Can you possibly drag this a little more off topic?
apparently "off topic" is when i incovenience you by proving you wrong.
> > > >>Its great that he wants to play and brought the Wizards some
mediocrity
> > for a
> > > >>while, but at the cost of their future.
>
> > > >there you go with that crystal ball again.
>
> > > refute the claim then. Show me what they have to look forward to.
No
> > crystal
> > > ball needed to see that they are in trouble.
>
> > there's nothing to refute, you're making an unequivocal statement that
the
> > wizards have somehow thrown away their future just so jordan can play
two
> > seasons,
>
> they traded their best young player and lost 2 higher first round
> draft choices as a result of Jordan coming back to play.
i still don't see why jordan coming back to play meant thay had to trade
hamilton, really you're making a lot out of this.
That has
> already cost them the future. Instead of drafting 1-8 this season,
> they'll be around 11-14ish.
and i've already pointed out that how you draft may be just as important as
where you draft, if it were as automatic as losing = automatically get a
superstar, every mediocre team would try to do it.
They traded away their future 2 years
> ago. So there is no crystal ball necessary. Jordan coming to the
> Wizards cost them the shot to rebuild faster. They are going to have
> to rebuild again when he leaves.
and in the interim they've been in two playoff races, sold out every home
and away game, rekindled tons of local and national interest in teh wizards,
and won a ton more games. these things aren't worthless like you want them
to be, but hey, it supports your view of things.
> >i'm saying you have no way to be certain where the wizards will be
> > in 2-5 years. absolutely none.
>
> and Im not arguing that. Im arguing what he already cost the team.
this is some of the stupidest, most ignorant crap i've ever read from
someone who was trying to "win" an argument.
> >you can make reasoned guesses and
> > predictions, but you're confusing guesses and predictions with facts,
which
> > you're painfully short of.
>
> nope, just going on what has already happened to the team. Answer me
> this: are the Wizards going to have to start rebuilding all over
> again after this year? What players do they have to build the team
> around? Is it a fact that they have to start rebuilding?
and you fail to realize that jordan playing has really not affected their
ability to "rebuild" the team in any way shape or form, in fact it's made
the team a lot better for at least these two seasons. jordan's taking
exactly $1M per season cap room. his playing didn't change the fact that
they drafted kwame brown instead of pau gasol and then didn't win the
lottery again so they could draft yao ming, if they could go back and cause
those things to happen, i'm sure they would. i never said jordan wasn't a
lousy GM.
Fletch
RzR wrote:
> who's Worthy?
This says so much more about you than I ever could.
*plonk*
RzR
>
>
> RzR wrote:
>
> > who's Worthy?
>
> This says so much more about you than I ever could.
>
> *plonk*
>
...I was just saying that you had no business mentionig him in this
thread... Kareem-ok, Magic-ok, MJ-ok...even Kobe, but Worthy?...he was good,
but not great...could have thrown in Rambis or Kuptchak(?) or something...as
for getting old, one could argue that people had to wait for MJ to retire or
get old to be able to come close to winning the champioship...
Haran Shivanan
>
>
> ...I was just saying that you had no business mentionig him in this
> thread... Kareem-ok, Magic-ok, MJ-ok...even Kobe, but Worthy?...he was good,
> but not great...could have thrown in Rambis or Kuptchak(?) or something...as
Please.
"Big Game" James is a hall-of-fame caliber player and as much of those
Laker teams as Magic and Kareem. He was always slightly underrated because
he played along with the other two.
--
We've heard that a million monkeys bashing away at a million keyboards
could produce a complete Shakespearian work.
Now, thanks to the internet, we know this is not true.
RzR
"Haran Shivanan" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b6cifn$3lboj$1...@ID-148859.news.dfncis.de...
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 11:33:51 +0200, RzR wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > ...I was just saying that you had no business mentionig him in this
> > thread... Kareem-ok, Magic-ok, MJ-ok...even Kobe, but Worthy?...he was
good,
> > but not great...could have thrown in Rambis or Kuptchak(?) or
something...as
>
> Please.
> "Big Game" James is a hall-of-fame caliber player and as much of those
> Laker teams as Magic and Kareem. He was always slightly underrated because
> he played along with the other two.
> --
damn im losing on all fronts :)
loone...@aol.com
> sorry, my sarcasmometer is broken,
pretty obvious.
> big deal, there will always be people who will say crap like that and i'm
> sure not saying it. the league will be fine without him.
but most every stat is declining, you said it yourself.
> > > i actually agree with you in regard to the MVP thing--it's not a great
> > > indicator of who's actually the best player in the league. (iverson is
> > > excellent proof of that.)
> > especially since its not even one of Jordan's better years.
> but MVP isn't relative to a player's best years, it's relative to how other
> players performed that season, another reason why it's not a great indicator
> of anything.
you mean like the season when Karl Malone won the MVP. He wasnt even
the best player that year, Jordan was. Jordan got it the next year as
payback, if I recall correctly.
>ironically a player can have a historic season and lose the
> award and then turn around and win it the next season while playing much
> worse. it all depends on how well other players play and the whims of the
> voters.
if a player has a historic season, then there is no way that they
should lose the MVP. How else would the season be historic, if
someone else played better. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you
consider a historic season. But I do agree with you for the most
part. The MVP award is basically a joke these days.
> > > anyway, his career numbers were trending down in the late 90s, but there
> are
> > > two good reasons for this. 1) he was getting older and 2) like i said,
> > > league numbers have been trending downward.
> > I buy reason #1, but not #2. League trends do not mean that a player
> > will decline just because the rest of the league as a whole is on the
> > decline.
>
> sure they do,
no they do not. The two are not inclusive. Scoring per game by teams
are down, but the scoring averages of the individual points per game
leaders are not. At least not since the 90's began. Just because
shooting percentage is down league-wide, doesnt mean that Jordan's
shooting percentage will go down. He's still the same shooter, just
older. By your statement, it would mean that every single NBA
player's percentages would go down just because the league average has
gone down. Jordan averaged more points per game in 95-96 than he did
in 91-92. He also shot a better percentage in 96-97 than he did in
86-87. None of that would have been possible if a player declines
because the rest of the league does.
>what, you think players play in a vacuum? game pace has
> slowed since the 80s which means fewer scoring opportunities in the first
> place--that's why scoring, assists, and rebounding (to some extent) are down
> across the board.
It just means that enough players were affected to lower the averages,
not that everyone was. Some players actually increase their scoring,
assists and rebounding from year to year.
>also, FG percentages have been declining, most likely due
> to a greater emphasis put on stopping the other team rather than just trying
> to outscore them.
in addition to a fundamental breakdown of shooting skills of a
majority of today's players.
> > so the Clippers arent talented?
> sure they're talented, so are the nuggets and the heat and the cavaliers.
pretty funny. Even as sarcasm, that's funny.
> look, the cavs in fact have an all-star center, a player who avearges 24/5/4
> and a rookie-of-the-year candidate.
which rookie of the year candidate would that be? Wagner? The rookie
that's shooting 37%, averaging 1.7 rebounds, 2.8 assists and 13.4 ppg?
The same one that by your standards is only playing to 65% of his
ability because he's only played in 47 of the 72 games his team has
played in? But I guess every rookie is a rookie of the year
candidate, right?
> but there's a difference between talent and *talent that helps a team win*.
I wonder where I said that. Oh, I didnt.
> i brought up other players because, if your logic is sound, it shouldn't
> apply to just one player you select at will. if being a "player in decline"
> from his best years defines a player that should be retired, then there are
> dozens of other players around the league who are still excellent players
> who, by your logic, should leave the game.
wow, you still miss what I said and refuse to deviate from it. I am
going by that player's career average, nowhere else. Not his best
years, not his worst. Then you're applying criteria I never said to
your erroneous statement and trying to see if my logic is sound? LOL!
> you don't get to apply your set of criteria to just one player and then say
> "no, it doens't count for those other guys."
perhaps you should apply what I actually said and not what you think I
said. I'll gladly debate that any player: playing at 2/3 of their
**average** career statistics when they are playing should retire.
This does not apply to injured players or players with less than 5-6
years experience. Note that I said average and not injured, which is
something you seem to have trouble grapsing. Lets apply my criteria,
and not yours.
> > we were talking about an individual player, not the real world of NBA
> > basketball. You do like to deviate off the topic.
> oh, this is too hilarious. please tell me your're being facetious here.
> please.
nope, not being facetious. Im talking that a player I feel should
retire (I acctually said he should have never come out of retirement)
because of the fact he's not producing near the rate that he used to
when he is playing. That's all I was saying. I'm not interested in
the other reasons, such as finances, salary and merchandising. Not
because it makes the argument less valid, but because its not what I
was talking about when I made the statement in the first place.
> > > see, you still don't know it. you want to criticize jordan because his
> > > production is down from his career best,
> > no no no, I criticized Jordan because he was down from his career
> > *averages*, not his career best. If you're going to break down my
> > statements, at least know what the discussion is, please.
> sure, and i showed how averages are worthless
do you realize how stupid this statement is? You still completely
overlook what I said and continued to say career best above.
>without taking a lot of other information into consideration.
and that in no way was the basis for my statements, though you're
trying to make it out to be like that. If a player doesnt play
because he was injured, it does not take away from his averages and
what he's produced when he is out on the court. No kidding he's not
producing anything for the team when he's not playing, but that's not
what I was saying.
>they become trivia--facts devoid of context.
so all NBA stats on the basis on average are trivia? Funny, the NBA
doesnt see it that way. Scoring title is based on average, assists
too, rebounds as well I believe. Steals? Blocks? Oh shit, its all
on average. Lots of trivia.
> seriously, i would have much less of a problem with your criticsim of jordan
> if you wouldn't selectively apply that criticism only to him and then ignore
> it in the case of shaq.
I really dont care if you have a problem with it. If you bothered to
actually look at what I did say, you'd see it doesnt apply just to
Jordan. It just doesnt apply to Shaq, yet. Under your definition it
does, but your definition isnt what I said at the onset of this
thread. My criticism applies across the board to any player that is
producing at 2/3 of their career average ability when they are on the
court. This would also apply to Vin Baker off the top of my head, who
wasn't producing when he was playing.
> > >yet it's okay that shaq's production is down from his career best
> because in the games in which he
> > > does show up to play, he's still averaging 85-90 percent of his career
> best
> > > averages. hypocrisy.
> >
> > if I were saying this, I would be a hypocrite. Shaq is around his
> > career averages right now. The only thing that is down a bit more
> > than average is rebounds. Something that could become a conern soon.
> > We likely have already seen Shaq's best years.
>
> his scoring and FG% are down too, but his FT% is up and his PFs are down.
His scoring per game this year is 27.6. His career average is 27.6.
That is 100% of his career average. His FG% this year is .569 and his
career average is .576. That is 98.78% of his career average. So
zero percent and 1.22% drops.
> the latter two really help compensate for his decreased efficiency from the
> field, you might say he's playing smarter rather than harder, which is a
> good thing for the most part in an older player.
so no reason for him to retire then. Whew.
> > dunno, since you've misinterpreted the rest of my statements, you tell
> > me. To me, helping a team to the lottery because you're injured
> > doesnt mean the player is in decline and has no relevance to
> > retirement. It means he's injured and hurt the team by not being able
> > to play, but it doesnt mean his skills have declined.
> "looney, please pick up a white courtesy phone, there's a mr. grant hill
> paging you."
Grant Hill is an excellent example. He should retire because he's not
healthy enough to play, not because his skills have declined. Thanks
for proving my point.
> > >it must be somewhere between 20.8 percent and 33 percent, you were
> criticizing jordan
> > > for being off "33 percent."
> > must be, even though it has nothing to do with what Ive said.
> but you did actually, and you don't even know it.
no, I did not. Im sure you can provide the quote where I did though,
right? Shaq isn't 20.8 percent off of his career averages. Can't get
that to register with you though.
> > but irrelevant in discussions about whether a player's skills have
> > diminshed. The skills are still there, the player is just hurt and
> > can't show them. It doesnt mean the skills are gone forever in most
> > cases.
> what, you mean like a skill that would enable a player to shoot 45 percent
> from the field, score 20 points a game, skills like that? because those
> sure aren't valuable in today's NBA.
yep, that skill. Even if its only 2/3 of that player's former skills.
> there, you're almost getting it. "provided" is the key word in that
> sentence. think of grant hill, jayson williams, charles barkley, ad
> nauseam...
I've gotten it since before this conversation even began. I know
players are useless if they do not play. Not too difficult to figure
that one out. But once those players do return, they will likely have
the same skills they had at the time of the injury. Injuries and
abilities are not exclusive.
> Jordan's skills are diminishing and he is
> > playing.
>
> shaq's skills are diminishing and he is playing.
yet the numbers say otherwise. Must be your hunch, because you havent
provided any statistical proof. Oh yeah, you dont like statistics.
> If you'd ask who I'd rahter have right now, Id pick Jordan
> > because he's healthy and McDyess is not. If they were both healthy,
> > that wouldnt be the case.
> "if."
and this still has no bearing on the original discussion.
> > > he's still efficient compared to when he was one of the top three
> players in
> > > the league, yes.
> >
> > yet those stats are still below his averages.
>
> shaq's stats are below his averages.
02-03 37.8 min .569 fg% .625 ft% 10.80 reb 3.1 ast .59 stl 2.42 blk
27.6 ppg
Career 37.8 min .576 fg% .541 ft% 12.10 reb 2.8 ast .71 stl 2.62 blk
27.6 ppg
percentage 100% 98.78% 115% 89.2% 110% 84% 92%
100%
so below average are fg% (1.18%), rebounds, steals and blocks.
at or above average are min played, ft%, assists and points per game.
I'd say he's playing around 95% of his averages. No reason to retire
this week.
> > no, as his averages.
> trivia.
so his averages are trivia? Good logic.
> no, he's giving them 85-90 perecent of his average while he's there 80
> percent of the time.
the stats say otherwise, but Im sure its just more trivia, right?
Even playing hurt, he's playing at 95% of his averages.
> Jordan's giving the team 75% of his average when he's there
> > 100% of the time.
> 80 percent of shaq's 90 percent production is lower than jordan's 100
> percent of his 75 percent production.
wrong. I knew you were going to say that too. Here's the stats for
you since you didnt bother to look it up...
MJ: 2675 min, 599 fgm, 240 ftm, 427 reb, 274 ast, 110 stl, 37 blk,
1451 pts.
SO: 2230 min, 613 fgm, 401 ftm, 639 reb, 183 ast, 35 stl, 143 blk,
1627 pts.
so in 445 less minutes, Shaq still has more field goals made, free
throws made, rebounds, blocks and points. Jordan has more assists and
steals. That's in 83% of the minutes that Jordan has logged this
season. And you were saying...
> Jordan is 75% of the player when he plays, and Shaq
> > of course he didnt help, I never said he did. It still has nothing to
> > do with his production level when he's playing.
> yet the team doesn't get to wait for him to get better, they've gotta keep
> playing without him.
exactly how hard does someone have to smack you in the head in order
for you to get the point?
year, and i'm using this year because it's most recent.
> > no, 97-98 was likely Jordan's worst year before his comeback.
> nope, that would be 85-86 or 94-95, take your pick, they're about the same.
why does it not surprise me that you say that the year he broke his
leg and the year he was retired were his worst seasons? Oh yeah,
cause you're predictable. By your reasoning it would have to be 85-86
because he was on the roster and they paid him that season. In 94-95,
he wasnt on the roster or being paid until he came back. Im surprised
a Jordan fan such as yourself wouldn't have known that.
> >, but it was still his one of his worst years, if not the worst.
> not even close.
it was his worst season in which he played that he was not injured.
Don't be such an idiot.
> > >amd 97-98 wasn't even close to jordan's worst year.
> > take a look and tell me what year was worse statistically then.
> if you can't see it by now, then i can't help you.
I see it, its 97-98. We are talking about his pre-retirement. And I
am talking about his non-injury years, which is what I have been
talking throughout this entire thread. Amazing that you havent
grasped that yet.
> hilarious. you want to keep peering at the issue through your little
> peephole when we've got all this other information relevant to the issue.
none of it is relevant to the conversation. Know why? Because its my
definition. You called me out on my statement and I told you exactly
how I defined what I said. If you were defending your statement, I
would go by your definition.
> i explained why averages are worthless when it translates to player value
> for the team when a player is injured, limited, or sitting on the bench and
> surprise, you ignored it.
key words in your statement "FOR THE TEAM". We are discussing the
individual's statistics, not how it relates in any way to the team. I
didnt ignore it, I said I agreed with it if you'd pull your head out
of your ass. I also said it is not what I was talking about and not
relevant to the discussion. You keep trodding along with the same
answer.
> I am talking
> > individual stats, and you're arguing what the team has to make up when
> > he isnt there. No kidding they have to make that up, but it doesnt
> > affect the *individual* statistics per game for that player. We're
> > not even talking the same thing.
>
> sure we are, we're talking about what stats are supposed to represent:
> actual player value.
actual player value to the team WHEN HE PLAYS. So we are NOT talking
about the same thing.
>it's just that you're cherry picking stats at will and
> then trying to exclude the stats that hurt your argument. this is how
> closed-minded people reason.
wrong again. From the beginning I've said that it is only applicable
when the player is playing, that injuries had no role in it. As for
being close minded, you havent budged on anything. I've seen your
points on a few statements, so I certainly havent been close minded
here. I'd have to call you a hypocrite here. You're trying to be a
nit picking little elitist, but you're not very good at it.
> oh, this is fun. you said:
> "It doesnt mean he played at less than 100% of his ability."
exactly. It means he didnt play.
> i already showed how 90 percent (shaq's averages this season relative to
> career best) multiplied times 80 percent (games played) equals 72 percent
> player value for the team.
and for the 100th time, that's not what I said.
> > so because I dont buy your line of bullshit, Im ignoring it?
> well, we have two options:
>
> 1) you're willfully ignoring it because you'd rather "win" an argument than
> be right
> 2) you're an idiot, and i don't mean it as an insult. i mean it in the
> psychological diagnosis sense of the word.
or option #3, you're incorrect. Its definitely not the first two
choices.
> sure, "semantics," it's easy to dismiss everyone else's reasoning, they're
> just going "off topic."
semantics semantics semantics. Its still what it is. I didnt dismiss
your reason, like Ive said numerous times, I just dont agree with it.
> it's much better to throw around trivia and ignore important facts.
well you should stop doing it then.
> you were the one that said jordan should be retired and your only reason is
> that his skills have diminished.
holy shit! He finally got it. Congratulations!
>i've given three good reasons in reply why
> he shouldn't be retired, among them this one. you can limit the discussion
> to teh asthetic merits of basketball all you want, have fun with that.
thank you, I'm glad I got the royal hinesses stamp of approval, since
Ive been doing just that the entire time.
>i'm looking at this from a broader perspective cause--hey guess
what--the NBA is
> a business first and believe it or not, that's how most decisions get made
> in the league.
and I never disagreed with this. Did I? Anywhere? If it was from a
business standpoint only, then he should never EVER retire. Prop his
ass up in the corner after his death. People would still come to see
him.
> right. you've arbitrarily decided that all discussion must center solely
> around this one criterion that you've chosen and all other aspects of the
> situation must be ignored because you say so.
exactly. You're getting it now. That was the ONLY thing I was
talking about from the beginning.
>furthermore, you want to
> selectyively apply that criterion to one player in particular and not on
> others, again because appartenltly you're more interested in wanting
> something to be true than it actually being true.
ok.
Terraholm
Here is the bio from the HOF nominations list:
JAMES WORTHY, 42, a native of Gastonia, North Carolina, was one of
basketball's greatest fast-break finishers at the college and professional
levels. A 6-foot-9, 225 pound power forward who could dominate with his
speed and agility, Worthy starred collegiately at the University of North
Carolina. He led the Tar Heels to the 1982 NCAA championship and was named
MVP of the Final Four. Named Helms Foundation National Player of the Year,
Worthy was selected an All-America 11 times throughout his college career by
various organizations. Named one of the 50 greatest players in NBA history
in 1996, Worthy played his entire 12-year professional career with the Los
Angeles Lakers. He helped lead the Lakers to the 1985, 1987 and 1988 NBA
championships and a total of seven NBA Finals appearances. He was named MVP
of the 1988 Finals after averaging 22 PPG, 7.4 rpg and 4.4 apg. He was
chosen for seven NBA All-star Games (1986-92) and is one of only seven
Lakers to have his number (#42) retired.
And we will know on April 7th if Worthy has been elected to the HOF this
year. Along with Parish he is the most likely nominee.
--
Laurel T
"If God is so good, how come
he didn't give you a jump shot?"
Said Sir Charles to AC...
Fletch
Haran Shivanan wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 11:33:51 +0200, RzR wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > ...I was just saying that you had no business mentionig him in this
> > thread... Kareem-ok, Magic-ok, MJ-ok...even Kobe, but Worthy?...
I've plonked you, but through Haran's response I can see that you're even dumber
than I first thought.
James Worthy, Finals MVP 1988 might be in the HOF by the end of the year.
> he was good,
> > but not great...could have thrown in Rambis or Kuptchak(?) or something...as
>
> Please.
> "Big Game" James is a hall-of-fame caliber player and as much of those
> Laker teams as Magic and Kareem. He was always slightly underrated because
> he played along with the other two.
> --
> We've heard that a million monkeys bashing away at a million keyboards
> could produce a complete Shakespearian work.
> Now, thanks to the internet, we know this is not true.
--
RzR
>
>
> Haran Shivanan wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 11:33:51 +0200, RzR wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ...I was just saying that you had no business mentionig him in this
> > > thread... Kareem-ok, Magic-ok, MJ-ok...even Kobe, but Worthy?...
>
> I've plonked you, but through Haran's response I can see that you're even
dumber
> than I first thought.
...u can't see sh*t through the purple shades...gotta love the guys that
have to call someone else dumb or stupid to feel better about their
posts...God forbid someone has a different opinion...
> James Worthy, Finals MVP 1988 might be in the HOF by the end of the year.
>
so? James Worthy was good, but what does that have to do with anything we
discussed...there are a lot of guys in HoF...but if a great majority of NBA
fans/coaches/players/analysts are saying that MJ is the best player ever (so
far), nobody needs you with you with your 1000 examples from history to try
to convince them otherwise...my whole point was the Kobe career is not
currently better than the MJs was/is...
RzR
"Terraholm" <Terrahol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v8k3qut...@corp.supernews.com...
I wonder if he would have still got the MVP if MJ didn't hit that shot?
Terraholm
>
> I wonder if he would have still got the MVP if MJ didn't hit that shot?
>
>
Without Worthy's MVP performance would they have been within range to win
with a last shot?
At least you did not accuse me of wearing purple shades...=)
--
Laurel T
"In my prime I could have handled
Michael Jordan. Of course,
he would be only 12 years old."
Jerry Sloan
RzR
>
> "RzR" <yeahrigh...@europeonline.com> wrote in message
> news:b6d9hp$53kk$1...@as201.hinet.hr...
>
> >
> > I wonder if he would have still got the MVP if MJ didn't hit that shot?
> >
> >
>
> Without Worthy's MVP performance would they have been within range to win
> with a last shot?
definitely not...i guess the better question is, would worthy still get the
MVP if NC didn't win that game...has an MVP ever been chosen from a losing
team in Final Four?
> At least you did not accuse me of wearing purple shades...=)
>
8-P
LoOneYto0n
>>Looneyto0n wrote:
>> I thought that was the entire purpose of the NBA. If its not
>> entertaining, no one would pay to go watch it.
>bingo. hey look, money does have soemthing to do with this equation after
all.
but none in the discussion we were having.
>> > so it's a sad state that NBA has bad teams that need on-the-court
saving?
>> when a 39 year old has to come in and try to be the savior, that is indeed
sad.
>oh, the ultimate sin, that jordan is *old*, how dare he. i mean, it's much
>better for a 24-year-old player to come play for a team because... well,
because you say so.
its much better for a 24 year old player to come play for a team because he'll
be there longer than a 39 year old player. The franchise can build around that
player. The Whiz built themselves around a 39 year old and now need to rebuild
after 2 seasons. Great idea.
>hey look, you're unwittingly proving my point again.
hey look, I'm still not arguing that point again.
>guess which team leads the league in road attendance while selling out all its
home games and getting above average ratings for its national >telecasts.
because they want to see the old man once more before he retires.
> so as for your argument that 10 teams have
no shot at the playoffs before the season begins, which ones would >those have
been?
Miami, Cleveland, Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, Memphis, Knicks, Rockets, Warriors,
Sonics, Rockets and Raptors. That's actually 12. Only the Rockets may even
make the playoffs, but they definitely exceeded most people's expectations.
The Warriors surprised a lot of people as well. There's only maybe 2 or 3
debatable teams in there. The others are easy answers.
>i'm still wondering what the stackhouse for hamilton trade has to do with
>jordan staying in retirement.
Jordan stays in retirement and that trade most likely never happens. Or do you
disagree that they would trade a 25 year old Hamilton for a 29 year old
Stackhouse if they werent trying to win right away?
>> wow, no team has never tanked before, have they?
>you missed the point.
maybe you should be a little more clear on your point then.
>the wizards had the number one pick a whole two seasons ago.
yeah, the year before Jordan got there. Last year they picked 13th I believe.
So like I said, Jordan already cost them another high draft choice, and will do
so again this year.
>there's a difference between having a high pick and vastly improving your team
through the draft. there are no guarantees: sam bowie, len bias,michael
olowokandi... ad nauseam.
you forgot Kwame Brown. More often than not, the first pick is usually not a
waste, but I agree with you for the most part.
>quick, how many times in the past 10 years has the worst team gotten the
>number one pick?
dunno, how many? The team with the worst record drafts in the top 3 by league
rules though I believe. So better they draft in the top 3 than to have no shot
at it.
>like i said, i'm sure you had them listed as the 2nd and 3rd best players in
>teh draft, how they're playing as the season has gone on isn't coloring your
>perception in any way.
those were the players available all the way to #10 pick. It would have been
much better if they would have at least had a chance to screw the picks up
instead of not being to make the attempt.
>That means if Washington would have sucked a little more last year that both
players would have been available at #9.
>so which one would they have taken and how do you know this for sure?
if they picked at #9 I would guess Stoudemire. Of course there is no way to
know for sure, but here's my best reasoning. Whether the Hamilton trade
happened or not, they need a power forward and have a glut of players that can
play SG/SF. They would have had Hamilton or Stackhouse at SG/SF. Brown,
Haywood and Laettner are the only big men. Laettner isnt a long term answer
and Kwame looks like he may be a bust. The Wiz arent scared of drafting a high
school player, but maybe they should be with Brown not looking so well.
Stoudemire would allow Brown to split time with Haywood and develop more
slowly. That's about the best reasoning I could give for that.
>Some analysts had Butler in the 4-8 spot, that
> means the Wizards didnt have to get the top pick to get a good player,
> just a little worse than they were.
>drafting sure is easy nine months after the draft itself.
please, Butler fell into the Heat's lap at #10. It was all over the place what
kind of steal Miami got right after they made the pick. Several teams
contacted Miami to trade up. Look it up if you'd like.
>you were the one that said that they picked up players that can't be impact
>players down the road, which of course you don't know for sure, you guess so
>but it's far from fact.
I said, "they dont pick up a player that can be an impact player down the
road." I didnt say it couldn't happen, but that it didnt happen. A bit
premature to say that? Of course it is, especially when the draft pick wiped
out his knee and is gone for the season. But he's producing zero right now, so
by your definition, I can say he isnt an inpact player.
>>I wont bore you by going back to list the many busts found after #10.
>no, there aren't any busts 1-10, all great players.
again, reading into things I never said. You do that way too much.
>he sure hasn't looked good, but he is only 20. i agree not a good pick
because they needed help this season more than anything but still too >early to
give up on him.
I agree. its too early to give up on a #1 pick.
>who did you have listed as your number one pick in the 2001 draft?
at the time I would have said either Gasol or Battier. I'm not much for high
school picks going so high. If I were drafting for the Wiz, I would have said
Battier because he was the more polished player. Gasol appears to be the
better player though for the long term.
>you've given one reason for why he should be retired, i answered with three
>reasons he shouldnt plus showed that your one reason is hypocritical.
I wasnt asking for your reasons. And how did you show mine was hypocritical?
Only one of your reasons was actually basketball related, which was all I was
looking for. If it was for financial reasons, then he should never retire, I
already said that.
>so now you're just lying about what i've said.
not at all, just making a sarcastic reply to a sarcastic response.
>> shall I change it to "you'll see" so that you can move on? I've got
>> it all figured out, you'll watch it happen and then claim you knew it
>> all along.
>it's amazing how you can ignore all this evidence.
you mean how I can ignore your opinion? Your opinion doesnt equal evidence,
just as mine does not.
>you say jordan won't have enriched the team once he leaves, i show how he will
have through ongoing licensing and ticket sales.
how hard headed are you? I said basketball wise, not anywhere did I say
financially. I never brought up finances and I am not interested in it. You
seem to think its relevant to the basketball part I was interested in
discussing.
>you say that attendance will drop within half a season and i show how that
didn't even come close to happening when he left before and the >team sucked.
its not the same team, therefore the same might not happen, correct? The Wiz
are perennial losers, and the Bulls were coming off 6 championships in 8 years
when Jordan left. Think there might be a wee bit of difference? Nah.
>you say the sun isn't shining and i point up to that big hot yellow ball of
fire in the sky.
and the big yellow ball of fire in the sky is a falling star that hit you in
the head and bounced off.
>yep. and just because you don't believe in gravity doesn't mean you'll fly
>if you jump off a building.
another excellent analogy. Not relevant in any way, just like most of your
discussion.
> >They may end up overpaying to add someone that may not even get them back
to where they are this year.
>hey look, two "may"s in one sentence, yep, looks like you're doing more
>speculating and trying to use it as fact.
you confuse me for you. I'm not the one trying to pass off anything for a
fact. I said my opinion on Jordan and you countered with how wrong I was and
how you were right. Care to wager on my speculating abilities? I'll wager you
50 bucks that the Wizards do not win as many games next year as they finish
with this year. I'll make the bet right now, before they even sign any free
agents or draft any rookies. I'm confident enough to do that. If 50 isnt
enough, we could do more and if its too much, we can do less.
>apparently "off topic" is when i incovenience you by proving you wrong.
no, off topic is when you discuss things not relevant to the conversation.
Basically the last 200 lines of every post that you post. You're the only one
of us that thinks you've proved me wrong. Ive agreed on certain things you've
said because I never disagreed with them in the first place. I dont believe
you've agreed with one thing Ive said so far, even though you've ignored
certain parts of my posts.
>> they traded their best young player and lost 2 higher first round
>> draft choices as a result of Jordan coming back to play.
>i still don't see why jordan coming back to play meant thay had to trade
hamilton, really you're making a lot out of this.
they traded Hamilton because they were trying to be contenders this year. I
dont think they needed to do it, but evidently Jordan felt he did.
>>That has already cost them the future. Instead of drafting 1-8 this season,
they'll be around 11-14ish.
>and i've already pointed out that how you draft may be just as important as
>where you draft, if it were as automatic as losing = automatically get a
superstar, every mediocre team would try to do it.
agreed to a point. If there are less good players available, then less of a
chance to draft a player that can help long term if hey arent there. The Wiz
have showed they can screw up the #1 pick, so it may be a moot point anyway.
>and in the interim they've been in two playoff races, sold out every home
>and away game, rekindled tons of local and national interest in teh wizards,
>and won a ton more games. these things aren't worthless like you want them
>to be, but hey, it supports your view of things.
like I said, they mortgaged their future for the present. It's gotten them a
mediocre team that looks like it will need to be totally rebuilt again. How
many times can they do this?
>> >i'm saying you have no way to be certain where the wizards will be
>> > in 2-5 years. absolutely none.
>> and Im not arguing that. Im arguing what he already cost the team.
>this is some of the stupidest, most ignorant crap i've ever read from
someone who was trying to "win" an argument.
you think I'm trying to win, that's funny and incorrect. I'm ot here to win or
try to change your mind, because its obvious you wouldnt change anyway. Have
you ever heard of a cost/benefit analysis? In every decision there is a cost
and a benefit. In the short term, the Wizards benefitted from higher
attendance, more wins, etc. It also cost them 2 higher draft picks and a shot
at a franchise player. Was the cost worth the benefit? Maybe, maybe not.
The long term cost/benefit hasnt been determined yet, but IMO they are in no
better position right now as far as draft picks than they were 2 years ago. If
you say that Jordan's cost to the team is "the most ignorant crap" you've ever
read, then that's your perogative. It doesnt change the obvious, that the
Wizards would have picked higher in the draft had Jordan not played.
>Answer me this: are the Wizards going to have to start rebuilding all >over
again after this year? What players do they have to build the team
> around? Is it a fact that they have to start rebuilding?
>and you fail to realize that jordan playing has really not affected their
ability to "rebuild" the team in any way shape or form,
you didnt answer the questions, no surprise. But Jordan playing HAS affected
their ability to rebuild. They would have had 2 higher draft picks. This has
already affected their rebuilding.
>in fact it's made the team a lot better for at least these two seasons.
in the short, short term that's true.
>jordan's taking exactly $1M per season cap room.
and once he leaves, that is an extremely bad thing. Now they have to replace
his production without the cap room of his salary to do so. Do you understand
why that is bad or are we going to have a lengthy debate over this too? Hell,
for the salary he is making, he might as well pay forever. How much would a
free agent averaging 20 ppg command on the open market? They'll have to pay a
lot more than 1 million to replace his scoring.
>his playing didn't change the fact that they drafted kwame brown instead of
pau gasol and then didn't win the lottery again so they could >draft yao ming,
not the first part, but it afftected the second part. If Jordan doesnt play,
the team finishes where, in the top 3 worst records? The year before they had
the #1, pick and Brown didnt do anything his rookie year. top 5 worst? That
gives them a 20 to 25% chance of the top pick depending on their record, and a
40 to 50% chance of being in the top 3. How they drafted from there could have
changed the entire team.
>if they could go back and cause those things to happen,
if Jordan didnt play, it could have happened. But the Rockets would have ended
up with the #1 pick anyway. They might have drafted #2 or 3 though if they had
the worst record.
>i'm sure they would. i never said jordan wasn't a lousy GM.
that's something he'll screw up. It looks like he's gonna be a bad GM.
Terraholm
>
> "Terraholm" <Terrahol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:v8kc44r...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "RzR" <yeahrigh...@europeonline.com> wrote in message
> > news:b6d9hp$53kk$1...@as201.hinet.hr...
> >
> > >
> > > I wonder if he would have still got the MVP if MJ didn't hit that
shot?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Without Worthy's MVP performance would they have been within range to
win
> > with a last shot?
>
> definitely not...i guess the better question is, would worthy still get
the
> MVP if NC didn't win that game...has an MVP ever been chosen from a losing
> team in Final Four?
Beats me. Seems likely sice it is over 2 games vs different opponents.
Need a NCAA follower to answer that one.
(West won the nba finals MVP in a losing effort.)
>
> > At least you did not accuse me of wearing purple shades...=)
> >
>
> 8-P
--
Laurel T
"I told him, 'Coach, there's an ocean out there.
Let me go swimming,"' Bonzi Wells
Alson Wong
> definitely not...i guess the better question is, would worthy still get
the
> MVP if NC didn't win that game...has an MVP ever been chosen from a losing
> team in Final Four?
Yes:
1939: Jimmy Hull, Ohio State
1953: B.H. Born, Kansas
1956: Hal Lear, Temple
1957: Wilt Chamberlain, Kansas
1958: Elgin Baylor, Seattle
1959: Jerry West, West Virginia
1961: Jerry Lucas, Ohio State
1963: Art Heyman, Duke
1965: Bill Bradley, Princeton
1966: Jerry Chambers, Utah
1971: Howard Porter, Villanova
1983: Akeem Olajuwon, Houston
Alson Wong
> (West won the nba finals MVP in a losing effort.)
The only time that has happened.
brink
<loone...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7ff76820.03040...@posting.google.com...
> "brink" wrote:
>
> > sorry, my sarcasmometer is broken,
>
> pretty obvious.
>
> > big deal, there will always be people who will say crap like that and
i'm
> > sure not saying it. the league will be fine without him.
>
> but most every stat is declining, you said it yourself.
you're assuming i have a probelm with most stats declining when actually i
don't. i'm a big fan of the defensive side of basketball and declining FG%
and scoring is part reflection of more effective defense. i also have no
problem with the lakers' grind-it-out halfcourt offense, i especially like
shaq's game and that tends to produce fewer shots, lower scores, fewer
assists becuase game pace is slower.
>
> > > > i actually agree with you in regard to the MVP thing--it's not a
great
> > > > indicator of who's actually the best player in the league. (iverson
is
> > > > excellent proof of that.)
>
> > > especially since its not even one of Jordan's better years.
>
> > but MVP isn't relative to a player's best years, it's relative to how
other
> > players performed that season, another reason why it's not a great
indicator
> > of anything.
>
> you mean like the season when Karl Malone won the MVP. He wasnt even
> the best player that year, Jordan was. Jordan got it the next year as
> payback, if I recall correctly.
well that too. the votres tend to give it to the "most heartwarming story"
or "makes for best copy in my article this month" player, not necessarily
the best player. the two I's prove that MVP can be a dubious award: iverson
and ichiro.
> >ironically a player can have a historic season and lose the
> > award and then turn around and win it the next season while playing much
> > worse. it all depends on how well other players play and the whims of
the
> > voters.
>
> if a player has a historic season, then there is no way that they
> should lose the MVP.
well to be exact, if two players have a historic season the same year, only
one of them is going to win it so actually no. but i know what you're
trying to say and i agree... it's just that sportswriters don't always
agree. for instance, there are a lot of voters who say "i'll never votre
for someone who is on a team that doesnt make the playoffs." so player X
can put up 50/25/15 on 55 percent shooting while playing great defense, but
if he isnt on a playoff bound team, then some people say he can't be MVP.
How else would the season be historic, if
> someone else played better.
i'm with you, give it to the best player, i frankly am not that concerned
with team record.
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you
> consider a historic season. But I do agree with you for the most
> part. The MVP award is basically a joke these days.
exactly, although they got it right last year with tim duncan, shaq deserved
it in 2000. actually they probably get it right at least half the time.
> > > > anyway, his career numbers were trending down in the late 90s, but
there
> > are
> > > > two good reasons for this. 1) he was getting older and 2) like i
said,
> > > > league numbers have been trending downward.
>
> > > I buy reason #1, but not #2. League trends do not mean that a player
> > > will decline just because the rest of the league as a whole is on the
> > > decline.
> >
> > sure they do,
>
> no they do not. The two are not inclusive. Scoring per game by teams
> are down, but the scoring averages of the individual points per game
> leaders are not. At least not since the 90's began. Just because
> shooting percentage is down league-wide, doesnt mean that Jordan's
> shooting percentage will go down. He's still the same shooter, just
> older. By your statement, it would mean that every single NBA
> player's percentages would go down just because the league average has
> gone down.
no, it just means that as the averages go down, outliers (best performers)
will tend to go down to. jordan in his prime and shaq today are both upper
echelon outliers, top 1 percent of the league in performance. relative to
the league, shaq is close to as dominant a scorer as jordan was in his prime
even though michael scored 37 PPG in his best season, relative to league
avearge and other top performers, it wasn't that much better than shaq's 31
PPG in his best. same applies with shooting percentage, it isn't necessarily
how well you shoot, it's how well you shoot relative to other players.
Jordan averaged more points per game in 95-96 than he did
> in 91-92. He also shot a better percentage in 96-97 than he did in
> 86-87. None of that would have been possible if a player declines
> because the rest of the league does.
that's because we're dealing with correlation, not causation.
> >what, you think players play in a vacuum? game pace has
> > slowed since the 80s which means fewer scoring opportunities in the
first
> > place--that's why scoring, assists, and rebounding (to some extent) are
down
> > across the board.
>
> It just means that enough players were affected to lower the averages,
> not that everyone was. Some players actually increase their scoring,
> assists and rebounding from year to year.
sure, and there are great reasons for that including players coming into
their prime, moving to different teams, being injury free, etc. i'm not
saying that there's a law that says a player can't average 50 PPG in today's
league (and it's been done before in NBA history, so it's clearly possible),
i'm just saying that it's highly unlikely because today's game is vastly
different from the 60s game. to a lesser degree, today's game is different
from the 80s game, that's why it's unlikely that a player is going to
avearge even 35 PPG next season (although again not impossible).
> >also, FG percentages have been declining, most likely due
> > to a greater emphasis put on stopping the other team rather than just
trying
> > to outscore them.
>
> in addition to a fundamental breakdown of shooting skills of a
> majority of today's players.
that's probably part of it, i wonder how much though. something tells me
that there might be more smoke than fire to that story, but i haven't seen
any stats that prove it one way or another.
> > > so the Clippers arent talented?
>
> > sure they're talented, so are the nuggets and the heat and the
cavaliers.
>
> pretty funny. Even as sarcasm, that's funny.
that's not sarcasm, it's fact. i'd be ecstatic if the lakers picked up
ilgausgas or wagner or hilario or davis or jones or butler or howard.
> > look, the cavs in fact have an all-star center, a player who avearges
24/5/4
> > and a rookie-of-the-year candidate.
>
> which rookie of the year candidate would that be? Wagner? The rookie
> that's shooting 37%, averaging 1.7 rebounds, 2.8 assists and 13.4 ppg?
> The same one that by your standards is only playing to 65% of his
> ability because he's only played in 47 of the 72 games his team has
> played in? But I guess every rookie is a rookie of the year
> candidate, right?
exactly, that's my point. he's got a ton of talent, but his production
sucks. scouts look for talent (talent *is* a good thing) but that's no
guarantee of any production. lebron james has more apparent talent than any
player in years coming via the draft but he may go first in the draft, sign
a great contract, and never score a single point in the NBA if some horrible
injury befalls him.
> > but there's a difference between talent and *talent that helps a team
win*.
>
> I wonder where I said that. Oh, I didnt.
of course you didnt, i said it. you said:
"so the Clippers arent talented? A lot of people had them slotted for
a playoff birth this year. You sure talk to a lot of basketball
players."
you're implying that the clippers have a lot of great talent (they do) and
that because a lot of people said they should be in the playoffs this year
that means something. when it reality it didn't.
> > i brought up other players because, if your logic is sound, it shouldn't
> > apply to just one player you select at will. if being a "player in
decline"
> > from his best years defines a player that should be retired, then there
are
> > dozens of other players around the league who are still excellent
players
> > who, by your logic, should leave the game.
>
> wow, you still miss what I said and refuse to deviate from it. I am
> going by that player's career average, nowhere else. Not his best
> years, not his worst. Then you're applying criteria I never said to
> your erroneous statement and trying to see if my logic is sound? LOL!
what, you think there aren't dozens of valuable players still playing who
are off of career averages? sorry guys, gotta retire, looney says so...
> > you don't get to apply your set of criteria to just one player and then
say
> > "no, it doens't count for those other guys."
>
> perhaps you should apply what I actually said and not what you think I
> said. I'll gladly debate that any player: playing at 2/3 of their
> **average** career statistics when they are playing should retire.
> This does not apply to injured players
cool, jordan's off the hook then, he's playing with bum knees.
or players with less than 5-6
> years experience.
why? so many players with less than 5 years experience suck and will never
get any better. meanwhile you want to cast off the guy who still puts up
20/6/5 shooting 45 percent and still playing pretty good D so never-weres
can have their shot?
Note that I said average and not injured, which is
> something you seem to have trouble grapsing. Lets apply my criteria,
> and not yours.
apparently your criteria is "anyone not named jordan or players i don't
dislike."
> > > we were talking about an individual player, not the real world of NBA
> > > basketball. You do like to deviate off the topic.
>
> > oh, this is too hilarious. please tell me your're being facetious here.
> > please.
>
> nope, not being facetious. Im talking that a player I feel should
> retire (I acctually said he should have never come out of retirement)
> because of the fact he's not producing near the rate that he used to
> when he is playing. That's all I was saying. I'm not interested in
> the other reasons, such as finances, salary and merchandising. Not
> because it makes the argument less valid, but because its not what I
> was talking about when I made the statement in the first place.
fine, you want to limit the argument to one specific area. people do that
all the time when they want to "win" an argument. "hey, tracy mcgrady's the
best player in the league, he scores the most!" "but what about defense and
rebounds?" "i'm not talking about those things, just scoring. he's the
best player in the league!"
> > > > see, you still don't know it. you want to criticize jordan because
his
> > > > production is down from his career best,
>
> > > no no no, I criticized Jordan because he was down from his career
> > > *averages*, not his career best. If you're going to break down my
> > > statements, at least know what the discussion is, please.
>
> > sure, and i showed how averages are worthless
>
> do you realize how stupid this statement is? You still completely
> overlook what I said and continued to say career best above.
no i didn't, i explained it, you ignored it, it's your favorite game. say
something stupid, ignore contradictory evidence.
> >without taking a lot of other information into consideration.
>
> and that in no way was the basis for my statements, though you're
> trying to make it out to be like that. If a player doesnt play
> because he was injured, it does not take away from his averages and
> what he's produced when he is out on the court. No kidding he's not
> producing anything for the team when he's not playing, but that's not
> what I was saying.
"ben wallace is the best player in the game! he leads the league in
rebounds!"
> >they become trivia--facts devoid of context.
>
> so all NBA stats on the basis on average are trivia?
nope, stats devoid of context are trivia.
player X scores 30 points per game. is player X a good player?
Funny, the NBA
> doesnt see it that way.
and the NBA is always right, huh. now you're arguing against yourself,
you're appealling to an authority that practically begged jordan to return.
Scoring title is based on average, assists
> too, rebounds as well I believe. Steals? Blocks? Oh shit, its all
> on average. Lots of trivia.
now you're getting it.
> > seriously, i would have much less of a problem with your criticsim of
jordan
> > if you wouldn't selectively apply that criticism only to him and then
ignore
> > it in the case of shaq.
>
> I really dont care if you have a problem with it. If you bothered to
> actually look at what I did say, you'd see it doesnt apply just to
> Jordan. It just doesnt apply to Shaq, yet. Under your definition it
> does, but your definition isnt what I said at the onset of this
> thread.
"derek fisher is a great defensive player. look at all those charges he
takes!"
My criticism applies across the board to any player that is
> producing at 2/3 of their career average ability when they are on the
> court. This would also apply to Vin Baker off the top of my head, who
> wasn't producing when he was playing.
i think vin isn't even producing 1/5 of his career average.
> > > >yet it's okay that shaq's production is down from his career best
> > because in the games in which he
> > > > does show up to play, he's still averaging 85-90 percent of his
career
> > best
> > > > averages. hypocrisy.
> > >
> > > if I were saying this, I would be a hypocrite. Shaq is around his
> > > career averages right now. The only thing that is down a bit more
> > > than average is rebounds. Something that could become a conern soon.
> > > We likely have already seen Shaq's best years.
> >
> > his scoring and FG% are down too, but his FT% is up and his PFs are
down.
>
> His scoring per game this year is 27.6. His career average is 27.6.
> That is 100% of his career average. His FG% this year is .569 and his
> career average is .576. That is 98.78% of his career average. So
> zero percent and 1.22% drops.
oops. i haven't checked his avearges for the past couple weeks, he's been
playing great and of course having appeared in fewer games helps him
increase his average when he's shooting and scoring so well.
> > the latter two really help compensate for his decreased efficiency from
the
> > field, you might say he's playing smarter rather than harder, which is a
> > good thing for the most part in an older player.
>
> so no reason for him to retire then. Whew.
i never said that he should. you were the one who said that when he gets to
2/3 ability he should pack it in. he's come close this season...
> > > dunno, since you've misinterpreted the rest of my statements, you tell
> > > me. To me, helping a team to the lottery because you're injured
> > > doesnt mean the player is in decline and has no relevance to
> > > retirement. It means he's injured and hurt the team by not being able
> > > to play, but it doesnt mean his skills have declined.
>
> > "looney, please pick up a white courtesy phone, there's a mr. grant hill
> > paging you."
>
> Grant Hill is an excellent example. He should retire because he's not
> healthy enough to play, not because his skills have declined. Thanks
> for proving my point.
you're ignoring the obvious correlation between injury and decline in
skills. what, you don't think that players don't play as well when playing
hurt or recovering from injury on-court?
> > > >it must be somewhere between 20.8 percent and 33 percent, you were
> > criticizing jordan
> > > > for being off "33 percent."
>
> > > must be, even though it has nothing to do with what Ive said.
>
> > but you did actually, and you don't even know it.
>
> no, I did not. Im sure you can provide the quote where I did though,
> right? Shaq isn't 20.8 percent off of his career averages. Can't get
> that to register with you though.
"don nelson is the best coach in the NBA. his team has won the most games!"
> > > but irrelevant in discussions about whether a player's skills have
> > > diminshed. The skills are still there, the player is just hurt and
> > > can't show them. It doesnt mean the skills are gone forever in most
> > > cases.
>
> > what, you mean like a skill that would enable a player to shoot 45
percent
> > from the field, score 20 points a game, skills like that? because those
> > sure aren't valuable in today's NBA.
>
> yep, that skill. Even if its only 2/3 of that player's former skills.
>
> > there, you're almost getting it. "provided" is the key word in that
> > sentence. think of grant hill, jayson williams, charles barkley, ad
> > nauseam...
>
> I've gotten it since before this conversation even began. I know
> players are useless if they do not play. Not too difficult to figure
> that one out. But once those players do return, they will likely have
> the same skills they had at the time of the injury.
say, when is grant hill due to step back on the court anyway?
Injuries and
> abilities are not exclusive.
no, they're correlated, as in player X with injured knee can't jump and
therefore can't shoot and therefore can't play.
> > Jordan's skills are diminishing and he is
> > > playing.
> >
> > shaq's skills are diminishing and he is playing.
>
> yet the numbers say otherwise. Must be your hunch, because you havent
> provided any statistical proof.
let's see... shaq's PPG, RPG, APG, TOPG, MPG, FG% and games played are all
worse than his best season in 99-00. FT% is better, that's about it. looks
like about 90% of his game is in decline from his peak year, decline is a
synonym for diminish... there ya go.
> Oh yeah, you dont like statistics.
no, i don't like stats used incorrectly. (e.g. the stats used to bolster
iverson's MVP award)
> > If you'd ask who I'd rahter have right now, Id pick Jordan
> > > because he's healthy and McDyess is not. If they were both healthy,
> > > that wouldnt be the case.
>
> > "if."
>
> and this still has no bearing on the original discussion.
of course not, because you don't want it to be. "ignore those facts over
there, they don't support my conclusion."
> > > > he's still efficient compared to when he was one of the top three
> > players in
> > > > the league, yes.
> > >
> > > yet those stats are still below his averages.
> >
> > shaq's stats are below his averages.
>
> 02-03 37.8 min .569 fg% .625 ft% 10.80 reb 3.1 ast .59 stl 2.42 blk
> 27.6 ppg
> Career 37.8 min .576 fg% .541 ft% 12.10 reb 2.8 ast .71 stl 2.62 blk
> 27.6 ppg
> percentage 100% 98.78% 115% 89.2% 110% 84% 92%
> 100%
>
> so below average are fg% (1.18%), rebounds, steals and blocks.
> at or above average are min played, ft%, assists and points per game.
>
> I'd say he's playing around 95% of his averages. No reason to retire
> this week.
you forgot games played (and turnovers but who's counting).
> > > no, as his averages.
>
> > trivia.
>
> so his averages are trivia?
when isolated from context, yes.
> > no, he's giving them 85-90 perecent of his average while he's there 80
> > percent of the time.
>
> the stats say otherwise, but Im sure its just more trivia, right?
> Even playing hurt, he's playing at 95% of his averages.
bump up my nuymbers to 90-95% of his average, sorry.
> > Jordan's giving the team 75% of his average when he's there
> > > 100% of the time.
>
> > 80 percent of shaq's 90 percent production is lower than jordan's 100
> > percent of his 75 percent production.
>
> wrong. I knew you were going to say that too. Here's the stats for
> you since you didnt bother to look it up...
> MJ: 2675 min, 599 fgm, 240 ftm, 427 reb, 274 ast, 110 stl, 37 blk,
> 1451 pts.
> SO: 2230 min, 613 fgm, 401 ftm, 639 reb, 183 ast, 35 stl, 143 blk,
> 1627 pts.
>
> so in 445 less minutes, Shaq still has more field goals made, free
> throws made, rebounds, blocks and points. Jordan has more assists and
> steals. That's in 83% of the minutes that Jordan has logged this
> season. And you were saying...
hey, i wonder who's taken more scoring opps.
>
> > Jordan is 75% of the player when he plays, and Shaq
>
> > > of course he didnt help, I never said he did. It still has nothing to
> > > do with his production level when he's playing.
>
> > yet the team doesn't get to wait for him to get better, they've gotta
keep
> > playing without him.
>
> exactly how hard does someone have to smack you in the head in order
> for you to get the point?
how hard do you have to press your fingers in your ears while saying
"lalalalalala" so you can't hear?
> year, and i'm using this year because it's most recent.
>
> > > no, 97-98 was likely Jordan's worst year before his comeback.
>
> > nope, that would be 85-86 or 94-95, take your pick, they're about the
same.
>
> why does it not surprise me that you say that the year he broke his
> leg and the year he was retired were his worst seasons? Oh yeah,
> cause you're predictable.
"when i punch 2+2 into a calculator, it always responds '4.' stupid
calculator, it's always wrong."
By your reasoning it would have to be 85-86
> because he was on the roster and they paid him that season. In 94-95,
> he wasnt on the roster or being paid until he came back.
ah, good point. 85-86 tehn by a bunch.
Im surprised
> a Jordan fan such as yourself wouldn't have known that.
i never said i'm a jordan fan, in fact i don't like him very much. i'm a
lakers fan, a shaq fan, a kobe fan. i have never turned on a game just to
watch the bulls, wizards or jordan play unless it happened to be a playoff
game and i watch those no matter who's playing.
that said, there's a difference between me liking a player and him being a
good player. jordan was and still is a very good player. much better then
but still very good now.
> > >, but it was still his one of his worst years, if not the worst.
>
> > not even close.
>
> it was his worst season in which he played that he was not injured.
> Don't be such an idiot.
oh, the irony.
> > > >amd 97-98 wasn't even close to jordan's worst year.
>
> > > take a look and tell me what year was worse statistically then.
>
> > if you can't see it by now, then i can't help you.
>
> I see it, its 97-98. We are talking about his pre-retirement. And I
> am talking about his non-injury years, which is what I have been
> talking throughout this entire thread. Amazing that you havent
> grasped that yet.
he's injured this year, so it doesnt count by your definition. funny how
that works.
> > hilarious. you want to keep peering at the issue through your little
> > peephole when we've got all this other information relevant to the
issue.
>
> none of it is relevant to the conversation. Know why? Because its my
> definition. You called me out on my statement and I told you exactly
> how I defined what I said. If you were defending your statement, I
> would go by your definition.
sure. okay, i say that you're a child rapist because my definition of a
child rapist is that i say you are.
> > i explained why averages are worthless when it translates to player
value
> > for the team when a player is injured, limited, or sitting on the bench
and
> > surprise, you ignored it.
>
> key words in your statement "FOR THE TEAM". We are discussing the
> individual's statistics, not how it relates in any way to the team.
then you want to talk trivia, fine, knock yourself out. great for parties
and writing sports articles, horrible for trying to understand the nature of
actual player value.
> didnt ignore it, I said I agreed with it if you'd pull your head out
> of your ass. I also said it is not what I was talking about and not
> relevant to the discussion. You keep trodding along with the same
> answer.
you keep saying the same stupid things, sorry, reality doesn't change
because you want it to.
> > I am talking
> > > individual stats, and you're arguing what the team has to make up when
> > > he isnt there. No kidding they have to make that up, but it doesnt
> > > affect the *individual* statistics per game for that player. We're
> > > not even talking the same thing.
> >
> > sure we are, we're talking about what stats are supposed to represent:
> > actual player value.
>
> actual player value to the team WHEN HE PLAYS. So we are NOT talking
> about the same thing.
how much value is orlando getting from grant hill this year?
> >it's just that you're cherry picking stats at will and
> > then trying to exclude the stats that hurt your argument. this is how
> > closed-minded people reason.
>
> wrong again. From the beginning I've said that it is only applicable
> when the player is playing, that injuries had no role in it. As for
> being close minded, you havent budged on anything. I've seen your
> points on a few statements, so I certainly havent been close minded
> here. I'd have to call you a hypocrite here. You're trying to be a
> nit picking little elitist, but you're not very good at it.
i'm not nitpicking, i'm bringing more relevant information into the
discussion. you're the one saying "that's off limits" and "we can't look at
that." we haven't even looked at other reasons why maybe he should keep
playing like he loves to play or he can show his players what it means to
play hard no matter what by example on the court.
conversely, you haven't brought up other good reasons why maybe he shouldn't
play like, i don't know, he needs to spend more time with his kids or he's
bad for the league because he weakens the NBA's future-oriented plan of
marketing young players. which is fine, you don't have to bring those
things up, i really don't care, just don't get all pissy when someone else
doesn't want to look at the issue through just the little peephole you've
selected.
> > oh, this is fun. you said:
>
> > "It doesnt mean he played at less than 100% of his ability."
>
> exactly. It means he didnt play.
>
> > i already showed how 90 percent (shaq's averages this season relative to
> > career best) multiplied times 80 percent (games played) equals 72
percent
> > player value for the team.
>
> and for the 100th time, that's not what I said.
it doesn't matter what you say, it matters what is. you can say that
gravity doesn't affect you but you still can't fly.
> > > so because I dont buy your line of bullshit, Im ignoring it?
>
> > well, we have two options:
> >
> > 1) you're willfully ignoring it because you'd rather "win" an argument
than
> > be right
>
> > 2) you're an idiot, and i don't mean it as an insult. i mean it in the
> > psychological diagnosis sense of the word.
>
> or option #3, you're incorrect. Its definitely not the first two
> choices.
i'm leaning toward number 1 because i think you're just feeling a little
backed in a corner.
> > sure, "semantics," it's easy to dismiss everyone else's reasoning,
they're
> > just going "off topic."
>
> semantics semantics semantics. Its still what it is. I didnt dismiss
> your reason, like Ive said numerous times, I just dont agree with it.
you're welcome to not agree with my reasons or conclusion, doesn't bother me
in the least. it's when you want to ignore evidence and facts and in fact
say the complete opposite to what evidence suggests that i wonder what's
going on inside your head.
> > it's much better to throw around trivia and ignore important facts.
>
> well you should stop doing it then.
maybe it is number 2 after all.
> > you were the one that said jordan should be retired and your only reason
is
> > that his skills have diminished.
>
> holy shit! He finally got it. Congratulations!
>
> >i've given three good reasons in reply why
> > he shouldn't be retired, among them this one. you can limit the
discussion
> > to teh asthetic merits of basketball all you want, have fun with that.
>
> thank you, I'm glad I got the royal hinesses stamp of approval, since
> Ive been doing just that the entire time.
"jordan's the best player ever, his jersey is the best selling of all time!"
> >i'm looking at this from a broader perspective cause--hey guess
> what--the NBA is
> > a business first and believe it or not, that's how most decisions get
made
> > in the league.
>
> and I never disagreed with this. Did I? Anywhere? If it was from a
> business standpoint only, then he should never EVER retire. Prop his
> ass up in the corner after his death. People would still come to see
> him.
but he'd be all smelly and gross.
> > right. you've arbitrarily decided that all discussion must center
solely
> > around this one criterion that you've chosen and all other aspects of
the
> > situation must be ignored because you say so.
>
> exactly. You're getting it now. That was the ONLY thing I was
> talking about from the beginning.
and now you contradict yourself, before you said you are open-minded, now
you're describing yourself as the very definition of closed-mindedness.
brink
LoOneYto0n <loone...@aol.communists> wrote in message
> brink wrote:
>
> >>Looneyto0n wrote:
> >> I thought that was the entire purpose of the NBA. If its not
> >> entertaining, no one would pay to go watch it.
>
> >bingo. hey look, money does have soemthing to do with this equation
after
> all.
>
> but none in the discussion we were having.
no, because the NBA exists only to entertain you.
> >> > so it's a sad state that NBA has bad teams that need on-the-court
> saving?
>
> >> when a 39 year old has to come in and try to be the savior, that is
indeed
> sad.
>
> >oh, the ultimate sin, that jordan is *old*, how dare he. i mean, it's
much
> >better for a 24-year-old player to come play for a team because... well,
> because you say so.
>
> its much better for a 24 year old player to come play for a team because
he'll
> be there longer than a 39 year old player. The franchise can build around
that
> player. The Whiz built themselves around a 39 year old and now need to
rebuild
> after 2 seasons. Great idea.
yep, none of the players were on the team before jordan was there.
> >hey look, you're unwittingly proving my point again.
>
> hey look, I'm still not arguing that point again.
i have no idea what you're responding to at this point because you keep
snipping context. hey, what a surprise, that's how you argue too.
> >guess which team leads the league in road attendance while selling out
all its
> home games and getting above average ratings for its national >telecasts.
>
> because they want to see the old man once more before he retires.
now you can read minds and can speak for thousands and thousands of people.
> > so as for your argument that 10 teams have
> no shot at the playoffs before the season begins, which ones would >those
have
> been?
>
> Miami, Cleveland, Atlanta Chicago, Denver, Memphis, Knicks, Rockets,
Warriors,
> Sonics, Rockets and Raptors. That's actually 12.
three of those teams are very much still aliuve for the 8th spot in teh
west, so how can they have had no shot at the playoffs before the season?
and the east is so weak you dont even have to have a winning team to make
the playoffs, so how can you include teams like atlanta, miami, toronto, and
new york most of which have unexpectedly lost substantial player time to
injury?
Only the Rockets may even
> make the playoffs, but they definitely exceeded most people's
expectations.
> The Warriors surprised a lot of people as well. There's only maybe 2 or 3
> debatable teams in there. The others are easy answers.
i see five "easy answers" and then i still wouldnt have bet my life against
any of them.
> >i'm still wondering what the stackhouse for hamilton trade has to do with
> >jordan staying in retirement.
>
> Jordan stays in retirement and that trade most likely never happens. Or
do you
> disagree that they would trade a 25 year old Hamilton for a 29 year old
> Stackhouse if they werent trying to win right away?
i was never very impressed with hamilton personally, maybe they weren't
either. remember, jordan gets to see these guys up close and personal, sees
their work ethic and willingness to sacrifice off the court, maybe he didnt
like what he saw in him. i don't know and you don't know either.
> >> wow, no team has never tanked before, have they?
>
> >you missed the point.
>
> maybe you should be a little more clear on your point then.
fair enough.
> >the wizards had the number one pick a whole two seasons ago.
>
> yeah, the year before Jordan got there. Last year they picked 13th I
believe.
> So like I said, Jordan already cost them another high draft choice, and
will do
> so again this year.
they were in the lottery last season, jordan cost them percentage points in
winning a high draft choice, not a high draft choice itself. it was not
impossible for them to have even the first pick.
> >there's a difference between having a high pick and vastly improving your
team
> through the draft. there are no guarantees: sam bowie, len bias,michael
> olowokandi... ad nauseam.
>
> you forgot Kwame Brown. More often than not, the first pick is usually
not a
> waste, but I agree with you for the most part.
we've had less than two seasons to judge kwame brown and to be fair less
than five for olowokandi. chances are that olowokandi won't get too much
better, he's already 25 and pretty fully-devleoped. kwame is 20 so he has a
ton of potential growth.
> >quick, how many times in the past 10 years has the worst team gotten the
> >number one pick?
>
> dunno, how many? The team with the worst record drafts in the top 3 by
league
> rules though I believe. So better they draft in the top 3 than to have no
shot
> at it.
you have to be pretty bad to be the worst team though, doesnt cleveland have
like 12 wins total? and then you still arent guaranteed a "superstar"
player.
> >like i said, i'm sure you had them listed as the 2nd and 3rd best players
in
> >teh draft, how they're playing as the season has gone on isn't coloring
your
> >perception in any way.
>
> those were the players available all the way to #10 pick. It would have
been
> much better if they would have at least had a chance to screw the picks up
> instead of not being to make the attempt.
no, the opposite is true, if they pick joe suckson with a high pick they
have to pay him more.
> >That means if Washington would have sucked a little more last year that
both
> players would have been available at #9.
>
> >so which one would they have taken and how do you know this for sure?
>
> if they picked at #9 I would guess Stoudemire.
well, the clippers were one better at #8 and they took chris wilcox, he's a
big PF type just like stoudemire so it's not like they were drafting for PG
or something.
Of course there is no way to
> know for sure, but here's my best reasoning. Whether the Hamilton trade
> happened or not, they need a power forward and have a glut of players that
can
> play SG/SF. They would have had Hamilton or Stackhouse at SG/SF. Brown,
> Haywood and Laettner are the only big men. Laettner isnt a long term
answer
> and Kwame looks like he may be a bust. The Wiz arent scared of drafting a
high
> school player, but maybe they should be with Brown not looking so well.
> Stoudemire would allow Brown to split time with Haywood and develop more
> slowly. That's about the best reasoning I could give for that.
problem is, jordan seems like a pretty poor GM so all bets are off. who
knows, they might have blown it and traded their pick for moochie norris or
something because they "like the way he hustles."
> >Some analysts had Butler in the 4-8 spot, that
> > means the Wizards didnt have to get the top pick to get a good player,
> > just a little worse than they were.
>
> >drafting sure is easy nine months after the draft itself.
>
> please, Butler fell into the Heat's lap at #10. It was all over the place
what
> kind of steal Miami got right after they made the pick. Several teams
> contacted Miami to trade up. Look it up if you'd like.
you think GS might be having second thoughts about taking dunleavy at #3
rather than butler?
> >you were the one that said that they picked up players that can't be
impact
> >players down the road, which of course you don't know for sure, you guess
so
> >but it's far from fact.
>
> I said, "they dont pick up a player that can be an impact player down the
> road." I didnt say it couldn't happen, but that it didnt happen. A bit
> premature to say that? Of course it is, especially when the draft pick
wiped
> out his knee and is gone for the season. But he's producing zero right
now, so
> by your definition, I can say he isnt an inpact player.
there's a difference between an impact player and "impact player now."
becuase by this definition kobe and KG both were not impact players but GMs
would saw off their right arms for the ability to go back in time and do
those drafts over.
> >>I wont bore you by going back to list the many busts found after #10.
>
> >no, there aren't any busts 1-10, all great players.
>
> again, reading into things I never said. You do that way too much.
it's your logic, if it's sound it should apply to all parts of the draft and
not just the magic "after #10" segment.
> >he sure hasn't looked good, but he is only 20. i agree not a good pick
> because they needed help this season more than anything but still too
>early to
> give up on him.
>
> I agree. its too early to give up on a #1 pick.
>
> >who did you have listed as your number one pick in the 2001 draft?
>
> at the time I would have said either Gasol or Battier. I'm not much for
high
> school picks going so high. If I were drafting for the Wiz, I would have
said
> Battier because he was the more polished player. Gasol appears to be the
> better player though for the long term.
there you go, drafting is not simple, there's actually a good deal of luck
involved. have some good luck, look like a genius. have some bad luck,
look like an idiot (sam bowie comes to mind, that was definitely some bad
luck.)
> >you've given one reason for why he should be retired, i answered with
three
> >reasons he shouldnt plus showed that your one reason is hypocritical.
> I wasnt asking for your reasons. And how did you show mine was
hypocritical?
> Only one of your reasons was actually basketball related, which was all I
was
> looking for.
no all three were basketball related. if i were to bring up that jordan
should play because it brings peace to the middle east, that would not be
basketball related.
If it was for financial reasons, then he should never retire, I
> already said that.
>
> >so now you're just lying about what i've said.
>
> not at all, just making a sarcastic reply to a sarcastic response.
>
> >> shall I change it to "you'll see" so that you can move on? I've got
> >> it all figured out, you'll watch it happen and then claim you knew it
> >> all along.
>
> >it's amazing how you can ignore all this evidence.
>
> you mean how I can ignore your opinion? Your opinion doesnt equal
evidence,
> just as mine does not.
it's not my "opinion" that players are worthless while sitting on the bench
in street clothes, it's fact. it's not my "opinion" that revenues and
ratings *are* are the primary goals of the NBA, it's fact. it's not my
"opinion" that a player playing at 2/3 of his previous production can still
be very valuable, it's fact.
but let's ignore those things, they don't support your conclusion.
> >you say jordan won't have enriched the team once he leaves, i show how he
will
> have through ongoing licensing and ticket sales.
>
> how hard headed are you? I said basketball wise, not anywhere did I say
> financially. I never brought up finances and I am not interested in it.
You
> seem to think its relevant to the basketball part I was interested in
> discussing.
you're welcome to peer at the issue through the wrong end of a telescope,
have fun with that.
> >you say that attendance will drop within half a season and i show how
that
> didn't even come close to happening when he left before and the >team
sucked.
>
> its not the same team, therefore the same might not happen, correct? The
Wiz
> are perennial losers, and the Bulls were coming off 6 championships in 8
years
> when Jordan left. Think there might be a wee bit of difference? Nah.
sure, it's just that i'm using evidecne on my side, past history and
performance, which i'm using as reasoning for my prediction. your evidence
appears to be "i want it to happen."
> >you say the sun isn't shining and i point up to that big hot yellow ball
of
> fire in the sky.
>
> and the big yellow ball of fire in the sky is a falling star that hit you
in
> the head and bounced off.
this is supposed to be witty?
> >yep. and just because you don't believe in gravity doesn't mean you'll
fly
> >if you jump off a building.
>
> another excellent analogy. Not relevant in any way, just like most of
your
> discussion.
you've snipped more context so i have no idea what this is in response to,
but that's your M.O. remove information from context, make argument from
this fragment of info, lather, rinse, repeat.
> > >They may end up overpaying to add someone that may not even get them
back
> to where they are this year.
>
> >hey look, two "may"s in one sentence, yep, looks like you're doing more
> >speculating and trying to use it as fact.
>
> you confuse me for you. I'm not the one trying to pass off anything for a
> fact. I said my opinion on Jordan and you countered with how wrong I was
and
> how you were right. Care to wager on my speculating abilities? I'll
wager you
> 50 bucks that the Wizards do not win as many games next year as they
finish
> with this year.
i'll go double that with you that sometime in the next 2-5 years they win
more games than this year, which before you snipped it was what we were
talking about--not just next season but the future.
I'll make the bet right now, before they even sign any free
> agents or draft any rookies. I'm confident enough to do that. If 50 isnt
> enough, we could do more and if its too much, we can do less.
while we're at it, why don't we bet on whether or not the mavs will win more
or less games next year, because after all, winning fewer games in *one
whole season* is proof that the franchise is in big trouble.
> >apparently "off topic" is when i incovenience you by proving you wrong.
>
> no, off topic is when you discuss things not relevant to the conversation.
> Basically the last 200 lines of every post that you post. You're the only
one
> of us that thinks you've proved me wrong.
there is no "proving you wrong" on your opinion that jordan shouldn't play
because there is no right or wrong to that issue. there is a proving you
wrong with regard to the fact that you insist that stats devoid of context
have relevant meaning and that financial issues are not inextricably
interwoven with game issues in the NBA.
Ive agreed on certain things you've
> said because I never disagreed with them in the first place. I dont
believe
> you've agreed with one thing Ive said so far, even though you've ignored
> certain parts of my posts.
i've agreed with what you said about the MVP award being bogus a lot of the
time, that a player who has the best season should win the MVP, i agreed
that the clippers are talented, and said 'oops' when you pointed out that
shaq's season PPG is equal to his career PPG, there's more but you get the
point.
i don't intentionally ignore anything that's relevant, if you feel i've
mistakenly ignored something now's your chance, let's have it out.
BTW, i'm not the one snipping chunks from the discussion.
> >> they traded their best young player and lost 2 higher first round
> >> draft choices as a result of Jordan coming back to play.
>
> >i still don't see why jordan coming back to play meant thay had to trade
> hamilton, really you're making a lot out of this.
>
> they traded Hamilton because they were trying to be contenders this year.
I
> dont think they needed to do it, but evidently Jordan felt he did.
like i said, you don't know it, i don't know it, it's a guess at best.
> >>That has already cost them the future. Instead of drafting 1-8 this
season,
> they'll be around 11-14ish.
>
> >and i've already pointed out that how you draft may be just as important
as
> >where you draft, if it were as automatic as losing = automatically get a
> superstar, every mediocre team would try to do it.
>
> agreed to a point. If there are less good players available, then less of
a
> chance to draft a player that can help long term if hey arent there. The
Wiz
> have showed they can screw up the #1 pick, so it may be a moot point
anyway.
>
> >and in the interim they've been in two playoff races, sold out every home
> >and away game, rekindled tons of local and national interest in teh
wizards,
> >and won a ton more games. these things aren't worthless like you want
them
> >to be, but hey, it supports your view of things.
>
> like I said, they mortgaged their future for the present. It's gotten
them a
> mediocre team that looks like it will need to be totally rebuilt again.
How
> many times can they do this?
how high can you count? (that's a jab at the wiz, not you)
> >> >i'm saying you have no way to be certain where the wizards will be
> >> > in 2-5 years. absolutely none.
>
> >> and Im not arguing that. Im arguing what he already cost the team.
>
> >this is some of the stupidest, most ignorant crap i've ever read from
> someone who was trying to "win" an argument.
>
> you think I'm trying to win, that's funny and incorrect. I'm ot here to
win or
> try to change your mind, because its obvious you wouldnt change anyway.
Have
> you ever heard of a cost/benefit analysis? In every decision there is a
cost
> and a benefit. In the short term, the Wizards benefitted from higher
> attendance, more wins, etc. It also cost them 2 higher draft picks and a
shot
> at a franchise player. Was the cost worth the benefit? Maybe, maybe not.
> The long term cost/benefit hasnt been determined yet
ding, tell him what he's won, jack.
but IMO they are in no
> better position right now as far as draft picks than they were 2 years
ago. If
> you say that Jordan's cost to the team is "the most ignorant crap" you've
ever
> read, then that's your perogative. It doesnt change the obvious, that the
> Wizards would have picked higher in the draft had Jordan not played.
wow, not only can you see into the future and read other people's minds, but
you can know for fact alternate realities that would have occurred if past
events had been different.
> >Answer me this: are the Wizards going to have to start rebuilding all
>over
> again after this year? What players do they have to build the team
> > around? Is it a fact that they have to start rebuilding?
>
> >and you fail to realize that jordan playing has really not affected their
> ability to "rebuild" the team in any way shape or form,
>
> you didnt answer the questions, no surprise. But Jordan playing HAS
affected
> their ability to rebuild. They would have had 2 higher draft picks. This
has
> already affected their rebuilding.
first of all, from what i understand, the team that has currently won three
consecutive championships and is working on a fourth is also looking to
"rebuild" much of its team next season, so the idea that losing today is
good because it helps teams "rebuild" in the future is a dubious argument.
second, you still haven't shown how having jordan play has hurt the team in
its effort to "rebuild." he's not taking up much cap space and the team
didn't have to trade anyone to get him. why does his playing hurt the team
next season?
>
> >in fact it's made the team a lot better for at least these two seasons.
> in the short, short term that's true.
>
> >jordan's taking exactly $1M per season cap room.
>
> and once he leaves, that is an extremely bad thing. Now they have to
replace
> his production without the cap room of his salary to do so. Do you
understand
> why that is bad or are we going to have a lengthy debate over this too?
Hell,
> for the salary he is making, he might as well pay forever.
good point. let's use one of your favorite new phrases, "cost/benefit
analysis."
guess who's the better player by the cost/benefit analysis: shaq or jordan?
How much would a
> free agent averaging 20 ppg command on the open market? They'll have to
pay a
> lot more than 1 million to replace his scoring.
so you're blaming micahel for giving the team a great deal and basically
helping the team. makes perfect sense.
"i hear you got that brand new hummer for $5,000." "yeah, i couldn't
believe it, the dealership practically gave it away." "but dude, you made a
big mistake, cause when you have to get a new one you'll have to pay *full
price*."
> >his playing didn't change the fact that they drafted kwame brown instead
of
> pau gasol and then didn't win the lottery again so they could >draft yao
ming,
>
> not the first part, but it afftected the second part. If Jordan doesnt
play,
> the team finishes where, in the top 3 worst records?
you don't know and i don't know. but let's make a big assumption.
The year before they had
> the #1, pick and Brown didnt do anything his rookie year. top 5 worst?
That
> gives them a 20 to 25% chance of the top pick depending on their record,
and a
> 40 to 50% chance of being in the top 3. How they drafted from there could
have
> changed the entire team.
yep, they couldve taken mike dunleavy. NBA finals, here we come.
> >if they could go back and cause those things to happen,
>
> if Jordan didnt play, it could have happened. But the Rockets would have
ended
> up with the #1 pick anyway. They might have drafted #2 or 3 though if
they had
> the worst record.
"if"
> >i'm sure they would. i never said jordan wasn't a lousy GM.
>
> that's something he'll screw up. It looks like he's gonna be a bad GM.
it sure hasn't looked promising. see, another thing i agree with you on.
LoOneYto0n
<loone...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > > so the Clippers arent talented?
>> > sure they're talented, so are the nuggets and the heat and the
cavaliers.
>> pretty funny. Even as sarcasm, that's funny.
>that's not sarcasm, it's fact. i'd be ecstatic if the lakers picked up
ilgausgas or wagner or hilario or davis or jones or butler or howard.
they may have some individual talent, but as a team they are not very talented.
>you're implying that the clippers have a lot of great talent (they do) and
that because a lot of people said they should be in the playoffs this year
>that means something. when it reality it didn't.
I'm not implying that because a lot of people said they should be in the
playoffs means that they should have been.
>> wow, you still miss what I said and refuse to deviate from it. I am
>> going by that player's career average, nowhere else. Not his best
>> years, not his worst. Then you're applying criteria I never said to
>> your erroneous statement and trying to see if my logic is sound? LOL!
>what, you think there aren't dozens of valuable players still playing who
are off of career averages? sorry guys, gotta retire, looney says so...
there arent many guys in the league that are off 25-30% from their career
averages. At least not "valuable" players. Those players dont stay around
long enough.
>> perhaps you should apply what I actually said and not what you think I
>> said. I'll gladly debate that any player: playing at 2/3 of their
>> **average** career statistics when they are playing should retire.
>> This does not apply to injured players
>cool, jordan's off the hook then, he's playing with bum knees.
he's still playing. Just as you are using Shaq as your example. He's playing
hurt as well, yet he's still within 90-95% of his averages.
>>or players with less than 5-6 years experience.
>why? so many players with less than 5 years experience suck and will never
get any better.
because players with only a few years experience can deviate easier than
players with more years in. If they don't play much their first 2 years in the
league, and then explode and have 1 real good year, then come back to normal,
it skews their averages. They need a few years to settle into what will become
their average, if that makes any sense. And true, plenty of players with less
than 5 years suck and wont get better. Those are usually the ones out of the
NBA in 2-3 years. They get retired unwillingly.
>>Note that I said average and not injured, which is
>> something you seem to have trouble grapsing. Lets apply my criteria,
>> and not yours.
>apparently your criteria is "anyone not named jordan or players i don't
dislike."
not at all. If I looked, Im sure I could apply it to pretty much anyone in the
NBA. Jordan is almost one of the exceptions to the rule because even at 2/3 of
his talents, he's still pretty damn good.
>fine, you want to limit the argument to one specific area.
no, its not that I want to limit it to one specific area to win an argument. I
am limiting it to that one specific area because that was the only way that I
meant he should not have come back. From a purely basketball standpoint. Not
monetarily, not any other way, because I wasnt talking about that when I made
my original comments.
>> do you realize how stupid this statement is? You still completely
>> overlook what I said and continued to say career best above.
>no i didn't, i explained it, you ignored it, it's your favorite game. say
>something stupid, ignore contradictory evidence.
you said, "see, you still don't know it. you want to criticize jordan because
his production is down from his career best." Career best. See the last part
of what you said? You're still ignoring what I actually said. And you're
saying Im ignoring what you said? Maybe once you actually get what I said
correct, that I'll address what you said.
>"ben wallace is the best player in the game! he leads the league in
rebounds!"
your ignorance knows few limits. What does your statement have anything to do
with a players averages? Now you're just answering with babyshit belligerant
answers.
>nope, stats devoid of context are trivia.
>player X scores 30 points per game. is player X a good player?
yes he is, ask Allen Iverson if you need clarification.
>>Funny, the NBA doesnt see it that way.
and the NBA is always right, huh.
more correct than you'll ever be.
>now you're arguing against yourself, you're appealling to an authority that
practically begged jordan to return.
so? Monetarily and ratings wise it was a good move. Then again, I wasnt
debating that.
>>Scoring title is based on average, assists
>> too, rebounds as well I believe. Steals? Blocks? Oh shit, its all
>> on average. Lots of trivia.
>now you're getting it.
no, I was just mocking you.
>"derek fisher is a great defensive player. look at all those charges he
takes!"
another babyshit response when you dont have a decent reply.
>i think vin isn't even producing 1/5 of his career average.
well, imagine that. My statement applies to him as well. Thanks for conceding
that my statement doesnt only apply to Jordan.
>> so no reason for him to retire then. Whew.
>i never said that he should. you were the one who said that when he gets to
>2/3 ability he should pack it in. he's come close this season...
no he hasn't. I'm sure you'll be happy to show some stats to back this up
though if its true. So I'll look for them.
>you're ignoring the obvious correlation between injury and decline in
skills.
oh really? So any time a player gets injured his skills decline? Jordan broke
his leg in 85-86. He seemed to have had some decent years after that.
>what, you don't think that players don't play as well when playing
hurt or recovering from injury on-court?
depends on how well they recover and the severity of the injury.
>> no, I did not. Im sure you can provide the quote where I did though,
>> right? Shaq isn't 20.8 percent off of his career averages. Can't get
>> that to register with you though.
>"don nelson is the best coach in the NBA. his team has won the most games!"
translation: you lost another argument.
>>Injuries and abilities are not exclusive.
>no, they're correlated, as in player X with injured knee can't jump and
therefore can't shoot and therefore can't play.
and in your case, player X can never return to the player he was because if he
did then, "you're ignoring the obvious correlation between injury and decline
in skills. "
>> > shaq's skills are diminishing and he is playing.
> > yet the numbers say otherwise. Must be your hunch, because you havent
> > provided any statistical proof.
>let's see... shaq's PPG, RPG, APG, TOPG, MPG, FG% and games played are all
>worse than his best season in 99-00. FT% is better, that's about it. looks
>like about 90% of his game is in decline from his peak year, decline is a
>synonym for diminish... there ya go.
yet still virtually the same as his career numbers. Go figure.
>of course not, because you don't want it to be. "ignore those facts over
there, they don't support my conclusion."
no, of course not because Jordan isnt injured. Injury is not a basis for his
decline and was not a condition of what I said originally.
>you forgot games played (and turnovers but who's counting).
you are.
>hey, i wonder who's taken more scoring opps.
why dont you look it up? Since Shaq is shooting 10% better than Jordan, and
Shaq only has 14 more field goals made, then I'd say Jordan has had more
scoring opps.
>> > >97-98 was likely Jordan's worst year before his comeback.
>> > nope, that would be 85-86 or 94-95, take your pick, they're about the
same.
>> why does it not surprise me that you say that the year he broke his
>> leg and the year he was retired were his worst seasons? Oh yeah,
>> cause you're predictable.
>"when i punch 2+2 into a calculator, it always responds '4.' stupid
calculator, it's always wrong."
especially when you mean to punch 2-2 in.
>he's injured this year, so it doesnt count by your definition. funny how
that works.
yet he's played in every single game this season. Funny how that works.
Injured players don't play every game and 36 minutes per game.
>> actual player value to the team WHEN HE PLAYS. So we are NOT talking
>> about the same thing.
>how much value is orlando getting from grant hill this year?
exactly. We're not talking about the same thing. Thanks for proving my point
yet again.
> we haven't even looked at other reasons why maybe he should keep
>playing like he loves to play or he can show his players what it means to
>play hard no matter what by example on the court.
I swear I've said several times that I was talking from a purely basketball
standpoint. I also swear I've said if it was for other reasons that he could
play forever.
>conversely, you haven't brought up other good reasons why maybe he shouldn't
>play like, i don't know, he needs to spend more time with his kids or he's
>bad for the league because he weakens the NBA's future-oriented plan of
>marketing young players.
knock, knock, anyone home?
>which is fine, you don't have to bring those things up, i really don't care,
just don't get all pissy when someone else doesn't want to look at the >issue
through just the little peephole you've selected.
I didnt bring it up because I was only talking about one area, his abilities.
If you want to debate every other point, then we can do that. It wont be as
fun, cause I'll likely agree with you on most every point.
>> > > so because I dont buy your line of bullshit, Im ignoring it?
>> > well, we have two options:
>> > 1) you're willfully ignoring it because you'd rather "win" an argument
than
>> > be right
>> > 2) you're an idiot, and i don't mean it as an insult. i mean it in the
>> > psychological diagnosis sense of the word.
>> or option #3, you're incorrect. Its definitely not the first two
>> choices.
>i'm leaning toward number 1 because i think you're just feeling a little
backed in a corner.
it couldnt possibly be because I simply do not agree with you. Im certainly
not ignoring it. Hell, I dont even know what it is anymore since you snipped
it.
>you're welcome to not agree with my reasons or conclusion, doesn't bother me
>in the least. it's when you want to ignore evidence and facts and in fact
say the complete opposite to what evidence suggests that i wonder >what's
going on inside your head.
I'm not ignoring it, but like Ive repeatedly said, we're not talking about the
same things. I more than wonder why you cant grasp the "fact" that I was only
talking about things from one standpoint: his basketball abilities.
>> > it's much better to throw around trivia and ignore important facts.
>> well you should stop doing it then.
>maybe it is number 2 after all.
I'm not the one that has made it into more than it is. You keep trying to blow
this into an all out discussion on why I should think Jordan shoud have come
back, when I dont disagree on it for any other reason that I think he should
have gone out of the game by hitting the game winning shot to win an NBA
finals.
brink
LoOneYto0n <loone...@aol.communists> wrote in message
> "brink" for...@about.it wrote:
>
> <loone...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > so the Clippers arent talented?
>
> >> > sure they're talented, so are the nuggets and the heat and the
> cavaliers.
>
> >> pretty funny. Even as sarcasm, that's funny.
>
> >that's not sarcasm, it's fact. i'd be ecstatic if the lakers picked up
> ilgausgas or wagner or hilario or davis or jones or butler or howard.
>
> they may have some individual talent, but as a team they are not very
talented.
relatively speaking, yes. absolutely speaking, they have tons of talent,
some of the best players in the world. remember, the heat and cavs both
beat the lakers this year, so it's not as if the lakers are unbelievably
better or anything.
> >you're implying that the clippers have a lot of great talent (they do)
and
> that because a lot of people said they should be in the playoffs this year
> >that means something. when it reality it didn't.
>
> I'm not implying that because a lot of people said they should be in the
> playoffs means that they should have been.
>
> >> wow, you still miss what I said and refuse to deviate from it. I am
> >> going by that player's career average, nowhere else. Not his best
> >> years, not his worst. Then you're applying criteria I never said to
> >> your erroneous statement and trying to see if my logic is sound? LOL!
>
> >what, you think there aren't dozens of valuable players still playing who
> are off of career averages? sorry guys, gotta retire, looney says so...
>
> there arent many guys in the league that are off 25-30% from their career
> averages. At least not "valuable" players. Those players dont stay
around
> long enough.
stockton, malone, horry, jim jackson, coleman, gill, weatherspoon,
> >> perhaps you should apply what I actually said and not what you think I
> >> said. I'll gladly debate that any player: playing at 2/3 of their
> >> **average** career statistics when they are playing should retire.
> >> This does not apply to injured players
>
> >cool, jordan's off the hook then, he's playing with bum knees.
>
> he's still playing. Just as you are using Shaq as your example. He's
playing
> hurt as well, yet he's still within 90-95% of his averages.
right, but i'm not the one calling for players to retire, you are. i have
no problem with shaq playing at 80 percent of his career numbers nor do i
have a problem with jordan playing at 75 percent of his, they're still both
very good players, shaq top five and jordan top twenty-five or so.
you're so close, but you put that "almost" in there.
> >fine, you want to limit the argument to one specific area.
>
> no, its not that I want to limit it to one specific area to win an
argument. I
> am limiting it to that one specific area because that was the only way
that I
> meant he should not have come back. From a purely basketball standpoint.
Not
> monetarily, not any other way, because I wasnt talking about that when I
made
> my original comments.
but you're being inconsistent in your assessment of basketball skills,
judging jordan more harshly than other players. if you just had just said
"i wish jordan wouldn't have come back because i don't like him" fine,
you're entireld to the opinion. but you're not, you're applying an
arbitrary standard (which is fine) but not consistently (which is not fine).
> >> do you realize how stupid this statement is? You still completely
> >> overlook what I said and continued to say career best above.
>
> >no i didn't, i explained it, you ignored it, it's your favorite game.
say
> >something stupid, ignore contradictory evidence.
>
> you said, "see, you still don't know it. you want to criticize jordan
because
> his production is down from his career best." Career best. See the last
part
> of what you said? You're still ignoring what I actually said. And you're
> saying Im ignoring what you said? Maybe once you actually get what I said
> correct, that I'll address what you said.
what does it matter, career best or career average, seriously? an average
is usually good for predicting future events but they aren't infallible and
when it comes down to it, averages don't make players valuable, performance
does. an average is just a reflection of past performace, i'm much more
interested in what a player can do for a team today.
> >"ben wallace is the best player in the game! he leads the league in
> rebounds!"
>
> your ignorance knows few limits. What does your statement have anything
to do
> with a players averages? Now you're just answering with babyshit
belligerant
> answers.
no, i'm just showing you how stats get misused all the time. it's
easy--remove them from context and extrapolate any meaning you want.
>
> >nope, stats devoid of context are trivia.
>
> >player X scores 30 points per game. is player X a good player?
>
> yes he is, ask Allen Iverson if you need clarification.
it's a serious question. is player X a good player?
> >>Funny, the NBA doesnt see it that way.
>
> and the NBA is always right, huh.
>
> more correct than you'll ever be.
since the NBA agrees with me about jordan being in the league, looks like
you lose.
> >now you're arguing against yourself, you're appealling to an authority
that
> practically begged jordan to return.
>
> so? Monetarily and ratings wise it was a good move. Then again, I wasnt
> debating that.
you're the one who just brought up the NBA as your authority figure, i'm
just applying your logic that the NBA somehow has all the answers.
> >>Scoring title is based on average, assists
> >> too, rebounds as well I believe. Steals? Blocks? Oh shit, its all
> >> on average. Lots of trivia.
>
> >now you're getting it.
>
> no, I was just mocking you.
and that's too bad, because ironically you were right.
> >"derek fisher is a great defensive player. look at all those charges he
> takes!"
>
> another babyshit response when you dont have a decent reply.
>
> >i think vin isn't even producing 1/5 of his career average.
>
> well, imagine that. My statement applies to him as well. Thanks for
conceding
> that my statement doesnt only apply to Jordan.
comparing jordan to vin baker is just plain dumb, basically you're judging
one of the best players in the league vs one of the worst and trying to
equivocate them.
> >> so no reason for him to retire then. Whew.
>
> >i never said that he should. you were the one who said that when he gets
to
> >2/3 ability he should pack it in. he's come close this season...
>
> no he hasn't. I'm sure you'll be happy to show some stats to back this up
> though if its true. So I'll look for them.
i've already shown them, you ignored them, what else is new.
> >you're ignoring the obvious correlation between injury and decline in
> skills.
>
> oh really? So any time a player gets injured his skills decline?
almost always.
Jordan broke
> his leg in 85-86. He seemed to have had some decent years after that.
how did he do in 85-86? looks like he missed about 60 games to me, i'm
guessing that's due to a temporary decline in skills.
> >what, you don't think that players don't play as well when playing
> hurt or recovering from injury on-court?
>
> depends on how well they recover and the severity of the injury.
but can we at least agree that players *tend* to not play as well when hurt?
i'm not saying *every* player, i'm saying that a correlation exists between
injury and performance just as much as a correlation exists between age and
perfomance.
> >> no, I did not. Im sure you can provide the quote where I did though,
> >> right? Shaq isn't 20.8 percent off of his career averages. Can't get
> >> that to register with you though.
>
> >"don nelson is the best coach in the NBA. his team has won the most
games!"
>
> translation: you lost another argument.
you're doing the same thing as the person who says nelson's the best coach,
you're omitting salient facts because those facts don't support your
conclusion.
> >>Injuries and abilities are not exclusive.
>
> >no, they're correlated, as in player X with injured knee can't jump and
> therefore can't shoot and therefore can't play.
>
> and in your case, player X can never return to the player he was because
if he
> did then, "you're ignoring the obvious correlation between injury and
decline
> in skills. "
when did i ever say that a player can't return to the player he was before
injury? the example of jordan breaking his leg is a good one. his
abilities to run, jump, shoot, and play basketball were severely diminished,
but only for a period of months. he was better than ever after he recovered
from the injury.
> >> > shaq's skills are diminishing and he is playing.
>
> > > yet the numbers say otherwise. Must be your hunch, because you havent
> > > provided any statistical proof.
>
> >let's see... shaq's PPG, RPG, APG, TOPG, MPG, FG% and games played are
all
> >worse than his best season in 99-00. FT% is better, that's about it.
looks
> >like about 90% of his game is in decline from his peak year, decline is a
> >synonym for diminish... there ya go.
>
> yet still virtually the same as his career numbers. Go figure.
why would you rather look at career numbers than recent seasons? which do
you think is a better reflection of the player shaq is today--numbers from
as long ago as 11 years ago or numbers from as long ago as 3 years?
> >of course not, because you don't want it to be. "ignore those facts over
> there, they don't support my conclusion."
>
> no, of course not because Jordan isnt injured.
sure he is, tendinitis in the knees and he also has back problems (he's
played in all games this season but left one earlier this year when i think
the back flared up badly after only 8 minutes i think).
i think kobe's been playing hurt as well (he says he is and he looks like it
as well), which might help explain why he has been playing very
inconsistently lately with a lot of poor games.
Injury is not a basis for his
> decline
suuuuure.
> and was not a condition of what I said originally.
right, "don't look at those facts over there, they don't help my argument."
> >you forgot games played (and turnovers but who's counting).
>
> you are.
>
> >hey, i wonder who's taken more scoring opps.
>
> why dont you look it up? Since Shaq is shooting 10% better than Jordan,
and
> Shaq only has 14 more field goals made, then I'd say Jordan has had more
> scoring opps.
bzzzt.
> >> > >97-98 was likely Jordan's worst year before his comeback.
>
> >> > nope, that would be 85-86 or 94-95, take your pick, they're about the
> same.
>
> >> why does it not surprise me that you say that the year he broke his
> >> leg and the year he was retired were his worst seasons? Oh yeah,
> >> cause you're predictable.
>
> >"when i punch 2+2 into a calculator, it always responds '4.' stupid
> calculator, it's always wrong."
>
> especially when you mean to punch 2-2 in.
>
> >he's injured this year, so it doesnt count by your definition. funny how
> that works.
>
> yet he's played in every single game this season. Funny how that works.
> Injured players don't play every game and 36 minutes per game.
sure they do, i already explained how he and kobe are both playing through
injuries right now. not every injury is a broken leg.
> >> actual player value to the team WHEN HE PLAYS. So we are NOT talking
> >> about the same thing.
>
> >how much value is orlando getting from grant hill this year?
>
> exactly. We're not talking about the same thing. Thanks for proving my
point
> yet again.
sure we're talking about the same thing, you just want to pretend that a
player sitting on the bench in street clothes is valuable because of his
potential value even though is actual value is currently zero.
> > we haven't even looked at other reasons why maybe he should keep
> >playing like he loves to play or he can show his players what it means to
> >play hard no matter what by example on the court.
>
> I swear I've said several times that I was talking from a purely
basketball
> standpoint.
yep, with your hypocritical standards, picking and choosing whom you want to
retire.
I also swear I've said if it was for other reasons that he could
> play forever.
i'm sure he's relieved to hear it.
> >conversely, you haven't brought up other good reasons why maybe he
shouldn't
> >play like, i don't know, he needs to spend more time with his kids or
he's
> >bad for the league because he weakens the NBA's future-oriented plan of
> >marketing young players.
>
> knock, knock, anyone home?
sorry, didn't mean to scare you by looking at something other than (shudder)
"basketball."
> >which is fine, you don't have to bring those things up, i really don't
care,
> just don't get all pissy when someone else doesn't want to look at the
>issue
> through just the little peephole you've selected.
>
> I didnt bring it up because I was only talking about one area, his
abilities.
yep, and you looked at it hypocritically, apply one standard to one player
and a different one to another.
> If you want to debate every other point, then we can do that. It wont be
as
> fun, cause I'll likely agree with you on most every point.
then what's there to debate, we agree, let's move on.
> >> > > so because I dont buy your line of bullshit, Im ignoring it?
>
> >> > well, we have two options:
>
> >> > 1) you're willfully ignoring it because you'd rather "win" an
argument
> than
> >> > be right
>
> >> > 2) you're an idiot, and i don't mean it as an insult. i mean it in
the
> >> > psychological diagnosis sense of the word.
>
> >> or option #3, you're incorrect. Its definitely not the first two
> >> choices.
>
> >i'm leaning toward number 1 because i think you're just feeling a little
> backed in a corner.
>
> it couldnt possibly be because I simply do not agree with you. Im
certainly
> not ignoring it. Hell, I dont even know what it is anymore since you
snipped
> it.
i already told you, i don't snip anything, you're the one who is snipping
here and there which makes it difficult to track what you're responding to.
i just leave everything in and respond where needed.
> >you're welcome to not agree with my reasons or conclusion, doesn't bother
me
> >in the least. it's when you want to ignore evidence and facts and in
fact
> say the complete opposite to what evidence suggests that i wonder >what's
> going on inside your head.
>
> I'm not ignoring it, but like Ive repeatedly said, we're not talking about
the
> same things. I more than wonder why you cant grasp the "fact" that I was
only
> talking about things from one standpoint: his basketball abilities.
and here's the part where i say, yes i understand that, you're just being a
hypocrite about it.
> >> > it's much better to throw around trivia and ignore important facts.
>
> >> well you should stop doing it then.
>
> >maybe it is number 2 after all.
>
> I'm not the one that has made it into more than it is. You keep trying to
blow
> this into an all out discussion on why I should think Jordan shoud have
come
> back, when I dont disagree on it for any other reason that I think he
should
> have gone out of the game by hitting the game winning shot to win an NBA
> finals.
and that jordan shouldnt play because he's "2/3" the player he once was and
that he's making his team worse in the long run and a lot of other nonsense.
did you forget about that stuff?
loone...@aol.com
> > <loone...@aol.com> wrote:
> > they may have some individual talent, but as a team they are not very
> talented.
> the heat and cavs both beat the lakers this year, so it's not as if the
> lakers are unbelievably better or anything.
how many games have the Cavs and Heat won? I dont believe its as many
as the Lakers have combined, but I could be wrong. Beating another
team once doesnt mean you have talent as a team.
> > there arent many guys in the league that are off 25-30% from their career
> > averages. At least not "valuable" players. Those players dont stay around
> > long enough.
> stockton, malone, horry, jim jackson, coleman, gill, weatherspoon,
please post their stats and show me how they are all 25-30% from their
career averages. Its not that I dont believe you, but I dont have the
time to look it up today. I wouldnt call Jackson, Gill and
Weatherspoon valuable though. Horry has his moments, but overall his
play hasnt been as good either. Coleman has been injured, and this is
a case where I do agree with you that his injuries have led to his
skills diminishing. Stockton and Malone may well be retired after
this year, though Malone looks like he's gonna go for the scoring
record so he may not.
> > not at all. If I looked, Im sure I could apply it to pretty much anyone
> in the
> > NBA. Jordan is almost one of the exceptions to the rule because even at
> 2/3 of
> > his talents, he's still pretty damn good.
> you're so close, but you put that "almost" in there.
that's as far as I'll go.
> but you're being inconsistent in your assessment of basketball skills,
> judging jordan more harshly than other players. if you just had just said
> "i wish jordan wouldn't have come back because i don't like him" fine,
> you're entireld to the opinion.
but I don't dislike him, far from it. He's one of the greatest to
ever play the game, if not the greatest. (I certainly do not want to
get into a "who's the greatest ever" discussion.)
> but you're not, you're applying an
> arbitrary standard (which is fine) but not consistently (which is not fine).
I said I would argue that any player, not injured and with more than
4-5 years in the NBA playing at or less than 2/3 of their abilities
should retire. How is that not consistent?
> what does it matter, career best or career average, seriously?
oh man, after all this time you're going to ask this now? A player
can have a career year where they average a significant amount more
than they do over the rest of their career. If a player has 1 year
where they average 20ppg and the other 9 years of their career they
average 9ppg, for a 10 year average of 10ppg, you cant just judge them
on their 20ppg year, its not representative of their career. Besides,
if we did that, Jordan would be down to be playing at only 54% of his
ability.
>an average is usually good for predicting future events but they
aren't >infallible and when it comes down to it, averages don't make
players valuable, >performance does. an average is just a reflection
of past performace, i'm >much more interested in what a player can do
for a team today.
averages are representative of a player's value. But I do agree that
it is only a reflection of past performance, and does not account for
injuries and aging and everything else.
> > >"ben wallace is the best player in the game! he leads the league in
> > rebounds!"
> >
> > What does your statement have anything to do with a players averages?
> i'm just showing you how stats get misused all the time. it's
> easy--remove them from context and extrapolate any meaning you want.
but you haven't misused them at all. You said he was the best player
in the game because he leads the league in rebounds. If your
definition of best player in the game is who rebounds the best, then
you're right. It has nothing to do with the stats, it has everthing
to do with the vagueness of your definition of what makes someone the
best player in the league.
> > >player X scores 30 points per game. is player X a good player?
> > yes he is, ask Allen Iverson if you need clarification.
> it's a serious question. is player X a good player?
in today's NBA, yes regardless of what else he gives or doesnt give to
the team.
> > >>Scoring title is based on average, assists
> > >> too, rebounds as well I believe. Steals? Blocks? Oh shit, its all
> > >> on average. Lots of trivia.
> > >now you're getting it.
> > no, I was just mocking you.
> and that's too bad, because ironically you were right.
it is right, all except the "lots of trivia" part.
> comparing jordan to vin baker is just plain dumb, basically you're judging
> one of the best players in the league vs one of the worst and trying to
> equivocate them.
I'm not comparing Jordan to Baker. I just applied my statement to
another NBA player. You said I wasn't applying it equally and I used
Baker as an example. It actually pains me to use Baker too. I've met
him several times (an ex-co worker of mine was related to him) and
he's an extremely nice guy. Its a shame his skills are evidently gone
and he needs to retire.
> >Jordan broke his leg in 85-86. He seemed to have had some decent years after that.
> how did he do in 85-86? looks like he missed about 60 games to me, i'm
> guessing that's due to a temporary decline in skills.
what you fail to grasp is that the skills did not decline. Skills
just do not temporarily decline because of an injury. If you want to
say he couldnt produce because of the injury, I agree, but he didnt
miss the games because of his decline in skills.
> > >what, you don't think that players don't play as well when playing
> > hurt or recovering from injury on-court?
> > depends on how well they recover and the severity of the injury.
> but can we at least agree that players *tend* to not play as well when hurt?
> i'm not saying *every* player, i'm saying that a correlation exists between
> injury and performance just as much as a correlation exists between age and
> perfomance.
a correlation definitely exists between injury and performance. Some
are temporary, and some are permanent.
> you're doing the same thing as the person who says nelson's the best coach,
> you're omitting salient facts because those facts don't support your
> conclusion.
look, I'm not omitting other facts. I have already said if the
decision for him to come back was based on every factor (money,
desire, etc.) then he should have definitely returned. But my
original statement was meant only in the context of his basketball
abilities.
> when did i ever say that a player can't return to the player he was before
> injury? the example of jordan breaking his leg is a good one. his
> abilities to run, jump, shoot, and play basketball were severely diminished,
> but only for a period of months. he was better than ever after he recovered
> from the injury.
I guess we're just playing semantics games. To me when a player is
hurt, his skills arent severely diminished. The skills are still
there, he just cannot perform due to the injury. The skills may prove
to be diminished, but because of the severity of the injury. I view
it as the skills are still there until they show that they aren't and
I believe you're saying they are diminished until they return. I dont
have a problem with either view.
> why would you rather look at career numbers than recent seasons? which do
> you think is a better reflection of the player shaq is today--numbers from
> as long ago as 11 years ago or numbers from as long ago as 3 years?
because career numbers reflect the player in all stages of his career.
If you only look at a 3 year average, and that player is declining
slowly, then he'll still be within range of the last 3 years
statistically, when in reality he's down quite a bit from his career
numbers.
> > no, of course not because Jordan isnt injured.
> sure he is, tendinitis in the knees and he also has back problems (he's
> played in all games this season but left one earlier this year when i think
> the back flared up badly after only 8 minutes i think).
he's still averaging 36 minutes I believe. Maybe its 33, I cant look
it up right now.
> i think kobe's been playing hurt as well (he says he is and he looks like it
> as well), which might help explain why he has been playing very
> inconsistently lately with a lot of poor games.
hard to tell with Kobe. The 40 point games and long season might be
taking a toll on him.
> > [injury] was not a condition of what I said originally.
> right, "don't look at those facts over there, they don't help my argument."
if a player is injured, its certainly a reason why their stats may
decline. That is why it wasn't a condition of what I said originally.
> > >hey, i wonder who's taken more scoring opps.
> >
> > why dont you look it up? Since Shaq is shooting 10% better than Jordan,
> and
> > Shaq only has 14 more field goals made, then I'd say Jordan has had more
> > scoring opps.
>
> bzzzt.
Shaq has less shot attempts but more with free throws. That's because
Jordan doesnt drive and get fouled anymore. Shaq is averaging more
points per attempt though, much more.
> > yet he's played in every single game this season. Funny how that works.
> > Injured players don't play every game and 36 minutes per game.
> sure they do, i already explained how he and kobe are both playing through
> injuries right now. not every injury is a broken leg.
and not every claim of an injury is an injury.
> sure we're talking about the same thing, you just want to pretend that a
> player sitting on the bench in street clothes is valuable because of his
> potential value even though is actual value is currently zero.
despite the fact Ive already said that a player sitting on the bench
not playing has no value.
> > I swear I've said several times that I was talking from a purely
> > basketball standpoint.
> yep, with your hypocritical standards, picking and choosing whom you want to
> retire.
the same standards that I've had from the beginning. I simply said I
believe he shouldnt have come back from a basketball standpoint,
nothing about anyone else that should or shouldnt retire.
> sorry, didn't mean to scare you by looking at something other than (shudder)
> "basketball."
sorry, didnt mean to confuse you by repeatedly saying that basketball
was the only thing I was looking at when I made my comments.
> > I didnt bring it up because I was only talking about one area, his
> abilities.
> yep, and you looked at it hypocritically, apply one standard to one player
> and a different one to another.
I've applied the exact same standard to each player I've talked about.
Sorry if anything that you do not agree with 100% makes something
hypocritical, but that's your issue.
> > If you want to debate every other point, then we can do that. It wont be
> as
> > fun, cause I'll likely agree with you on most every point.
> then what's there to debate, we agree, let's move on.
you haven't proved capable of moving on. Why else would we be
rehashing the same material 20 times? I already agreed with you on
everything else besides Jordan's basketball abilities and that you
think Shaq is in decline from his career numbers.
> > I'm not ignoring it, but like Ive repeatedly said, we're not talking about
> the
> > same things. I more than wonder why you cant grasp the "fact" that I was
> only
> > talking about things from one standpoint: his basketball abilities.
> and here's the part where i say, yes i understand that, you're just being a
> hypocrite about it.
and here's the part where I say, where have I been a hypocrite, and
you reply with, "I've already told you that", and don't give a reason.
> > I'm not the one that has made it into more than it is. You keep trying to
> blow
> > this into an all out discussion on why I should think Jordan shoud have
> come
> > back, when I dont disagree on it for any other reason that I think he
> should
> > have gone out of the game by hitting the game winning shot to win an NBA
> > finals.
> and that jordan shouldnt play because he's "2/3" the player he once was and
> that he's making his team worse in the long run and a lot of other nonsense.
> did you forget about that stuff?
that's all the result of him coming back.
loone...@aol.com
>>Looneyto0n wrote:
> no, because the NBA exists only to entertain you.
exactly. What else would it exist for? If it didnt entertain me and
millions of other fans, it wouldnt exist at all.
> > its much better for a 24 year old player to come play for a team because
> he'll
> > be there longer than a 39 year old player. The franchise can build around
> that
> > player. The Whiz built themselves around a 39 year old and now need to
> rebuild
> > after 2 seasons. Great idea.
> yep, none of the players were on the team before jordan was there.
that has nothing to do with rebuilding.
> > >guess which team leads the league in road attendance while selling out
> all its
> > home games and getting above average ratings for its national >telecasts.
> > because they want to see the old man once more before he retires.
> now you can read minds and can speak for thousands and thousands of people.
why else would anyone want to see a mediocre team? I cant believe you
would even argue this point.
> > Miami, Cleveland, Atlanta Chicago, Denver, Memphis, Knicks, Rockets,
> Warriors,
> > Sonics, Rockets and Raptors. That's actually 12.
>
> three of those teams are very much still aliuve for the 8th spot in teh
> west, so how can they have had no shot at the playoffs before the season?
some of the teams overachieved. You said to name teams that had no
shot at the beginning of the season. Those were the teams I would
have named at the beginning of the season. How many of those made the
playoffs?
> and the east is so weak you dont even have to have a winning team to make
> the playoffs, so how can you include teams like atlanta, miami, toronto, and
> new york most of which have unexpectedly lost substantial player time to
> injury?
Atlanta, Miami, Toronto and New York may have never even been at .500
any time in the NBA season. Miami has 23 wins. You're just reaching
now. The bottom feeders had no chance at the start of the season.
I'd even say those same teams minus the Rockets and Warriors will be
in the same spot next season. Add Washington to that list.
> > The Warriors surprised a lot of people as well. There's only maybe 2 or 3
> > debatable teams in there. The others are easy answers.
> i see five "easy answers" and then i still wouldnt have bet my life against
> any of them.
as easy I would say: Miami, Cleveland, Chicago, Denver, Memphis,
Knicks, Raptors, Rockets and Warriors. The Warriors played better
than anyone thought, but that still would have been an easy bet at the
beginning of the year. No one knew how Ming would play in the NBA.
And IMO the Rockets overachieved this year. What teams don't you
think would have been easy to put there at the beginning of the year?
> i was never very impressed with hamilton personally, maybe they weren't
> either.
that's possible, but why trade a 25 year old that hasnt hit his prime
yet?
> remember, jordan gets to see these guys up close and personal, sees
> their work ethic and willingness to sacrifice off the court, maybe he didnt
> like what he saw in him. i don't know and you don't know either.
true, but both you and I already think he's a poor GM (you said it),
so there has to be some reason why we think that. His player moves
have been questionable at best so far.
> > >the wizards had the number one pick a whole two seasons ago.
> > yeah, the year before Jordan got there. Last year they picked 13th I
> believe.
> > So like I said, Jordan already cost them another high draft choice, and
> will do
> > so again this year.
> they were in the lottery last season, jordan cost them percentage points in
> winning a high draft choice, not a high draft choice itself. it was not
> impossible for them to have even the first pick.
he still cost them a shot. They had about a 3% shot of the first
pick, IIRC. If he wouldn't have played, they may have had a 25% shot
at yhe #1 pick, and would have been in the top 3 if they had the worst
record. With only 3% of the ping pong balls in the hopper, IMO he
definitely cost them a higher pick.
> we've had less than two seasons to judge kwame brown and to be fair less
> than five for olowokandi. chances are that olowokandi won't get too much
> better, he's already 25 and pretty fully-devleoped. kwame is 20 so he has a
> ton of potential growth.
yeah, but Michael has already called Kwame out a few times, so he's
not coming along as quickly as Jordan thought he could. He may still
though. Someone is going to overpay for Olowokandi.
> you have to be pretty bad to be the worst team though, doesnt cleveland have
> like 12 wins total? and then you still arent guaranteed a "superstar"
> player.
I was referring to last year. I dunno who had the worst record then.
But even if they were in the top 3, it would be decent this year.
It would have
> been
> > much better if they would have at least had a chance to screw the picks up
> > instead of not being to make the attempt.
>
> no, the opposite is true, if they pick joe suckson with a high pick they
> have to pay him more.
ok, so just select mid round players. sheesh.
> > if they picked at #9 I would guess Stoudemire.
> well, the clippers were one better at #8 and they took chris wilcox, he's a
> big PF type just like stoudemire so it's not like they were drafting for PG
> or something.
they traded for Miller, they didnt need a PG.
> problem is, jordan seems like a pretty poor GM so all bets are off. who
> knows, they might have blown it and traded their pick for moochie norris or
> something because they "like the way he hustles."
no argument there.
> you think GS might be having second thoughts about taking dunleavy at #3
> rather than butler?
the only reason I can think of why they wouldn't is because they
already have Richardson and Arenas. But Im sure they'd still take
Butler.
> there you go, drafting is not simple, there's actually a good deal of luck
> involved. have some good luck, look like a genius. have some bad luck,
> look like an idiot (sam bowie comes to mind, that was definitely some bad
> luck.)
granted. I still think Battier will be a better pro than Brown
though.
> no all three were basketball related. if i were to bring up that jordan
> should play because it brings peace to the middle east, that would not be
> basketball related.
ok, ya got me...basketball "skills" related.
> it's not my "opinion" that players are worthless while sitting on the bench
> in street clothes, it's fact.
if those players are wothless, how did Luc Longley get traded several
times when he was too injured to play? Just using your own logic
against you now. =)
> it's not my "opinion" that revenues and
> ratings *are* are the primary goals of the NBA, it's fact.
but its not relevant to the discussion.
>it's not my "opinion" that a player playing at 2/3 of his previous
production can still be very valuable, it's fact.
its your opinion that he's still "very" valuable.
> but let's ignore those things, they don't support your conclusion.
no, they arent relevant to the discussion. Dont know how many times I
have to say I was only talking about it from a basketball skills
standpoint.
> you're welcome to peer at the issue through the wrong end of a telescope,
> have fun with that.
that was the only way I was viewing it, a smaller issue in the scope
of things. Why does everything have to encompass the entire
reasoning?
> >The Wiz are perennial losers, and the Bulls were coming off 6 championships > in 8 years
> > when Jordan left. Think there might be a wee bit of difference? Nah.
> sure, it's just that i'm using evidecne on my side, past history and
> performance, which i'm using as reasoning for my prediction.
but as you said in another argument, past history does not indicate
future performance. Now that you've contradicted yourself, which is
it?
>your evidence appears to be "i want it to happen."
the difference is that I never said it was evidence, and wasn't trying
to pass my opinion off as fact.
> > you confuse me for you. I'm not the one trying to pass off anything for a
> > fact. I said my opinion on Jordan and you countered with how wrong I was
> and
> > how you were right. Care to wager on my speculating abilities? I'll
> wager you
> > 50 bucks that the Wizards do not win as many games next year as they
> finish
> > with this year.
> i'll go double that with you that sometime in the next 2-5 years they win
> more games than this year, which before you snipped it was what we were
> talking about--not just next season but the future.
I'd go 2 years, but not 5. Eventually they are bound to win more
games than this season, they didnt win that many games this season for
me to think that they couldnt be better than that in 4-5 years. I'm
not one to say that past history would indicate future performance.
> while we're at it, why don't we bet on whether or not the mavs will win more
> or less games next year, because after all, winning fewer games in *one
> whole season* is proof that the franchise is in big trouble.
I'll take the under. If the Wizards don't replace who they have, then
they may not even reach 1/2 the victories. The Wizards have been in
trouble for years, decades even. They almost got out of it, but GM
Jordan looks like he'll keep them there for a while.
> there is no "proving you wrong" on your opinion that jordan shouldn't play
> because there is no right or wrong to that issue.
so why are you so vehemently debating it?
>there is a proving you wrong with regard to the fact that you insist
that stats devoid of context have relevant meaning and that financial
issues are not >inextricably interwoven with game issues in the NBA.
because you're incapable of seperating a part from the whole.
> BTW, i'm not the one snipping chunks from the discussion.
I'm snipping it because there's no need to have 1600 line posts.
> > they traded Hamilton because they were trying to be contenders this year.
> I
> > dont think they needed to do it, but evidently Jordan felt he did.
> like i said, you don't know it, i don't know it, it's a guess at best.
and that was a shot at Jordan the GM, not the player.
> > like I said, they mortgaged their future for the present. It's gotten
> them a
> > mediocre team that looks like it will need to be totally rebuilt again.
> How
> > many times can they do this?
> how high can you count? (that's a jab at the wiz, not you)
I guess you have a good point there. They had an opportunity to
rebuild immediately with Jordan, and to try to get some good players
around them. It just looks like they didnt get there and will have to
start over.
> but IMO they are in no
> > better position right now as far as draft picks than they were 2 years
> ago. If
> > you say that Jordan's cost to the team is "the most ignorant crap" you've
> ever
> > read, then that's your perogative. It doesnt change the obvious, that the
> > Wizards would have picked higher in the draft had Jordan not played.
>
> wow, not only can you see into the future and read other people's minds, but
> you can know for fact alternate realities that would have occurred if past
> events had been different.
I did say in my opinion. I dont think its that much of a stretch to
say that they would have had a higher draft pick had Jordan not played
though.
> first of all, from what i understand, the team that has currently won three
> consecutive championships and is working on a fourth is also looking to
> "rebuild" much of its team next season, so the idea that losing today is
> good because it helps teams "rebuild" in the future is a dubious argument.
the Lakers have 1 thing the Wiz do not though, a core set of players,
even if that is only 2 players.
> second, you still haven't shown how having jordan play has hurt the team in
> its effort to "rebuild." he's not taking up much cap space and the team
> didn't have to trade anyone to get him. why does his playing hurt the team
> next season?
because they wont have the draft pick they would have had he not
played. I am assuming they would have been worse than they are this
year had Jordan not played.
> > >in fact it's made the team a lot better for at least these two seasons.
> > in the short, short term that's true.
> >
> > >jordan's taking exactly $1M per season cap room.
> >
> > and once he leaves, that is an extremely bad thing. Now they have to
> replace
> > his production without the cap room of his salary to do so. Do you
> understand
> > why that is bad or are we going to have a lengthy debate over this too?
> Hell,
> > for the salary he is making, he might as well pay forever.
>
> good point. let's use one of your favorite new phrases, "cost/benefit
> analysis."
> guess who's the better player by the cost/benefit analysis: shaq or jordan?
no argument there. Jordan's the biggest bargain in the NBA for what
he produces.
> so you're blaming micahel for giving the team a great deal and basically
> helping the team. makes perfect sense.
I'm not blaming him. It is just going to hurt the team in the future.
> >How they drafted from there could have changed the entire team.
>
> yep, they couldve taken mike dunleavy. NBA finals, here we come.
and I will counter by asking you if they would have been in any worse
situation had they taken Dunleavy? Draft picks fail, I understand
that. But I'd rather pick higher if I can. Even if it means a nigger
bust if they dont work out.
brink
>
> > > <loone...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > they may have some individual talent, but as a team they are not very
> > talented.
>
> > the heat and cavs both beat the lakers this year, so it's not as if the
> > lakers are unbelievably better or anything.
>
> how many games have the Cavs and Heat won? I dont believe its as many
> as the Lakers have combined, but I could be wrong. Beating another
> team once doesnt mean you have talent as a team.
sure it does, you have to have some degree of talent to beat a team as good
as the lakers, no question the lakers have superior talent as a team, but
like i said, it's not as if they're so unbelieveably better that the cavs,
heat (or bulls and hawks) are incapable of beating them. and also like i
said, i'd be thrilled if the lakers would get their hands on some of that
talent next year.
>
> > > there arent many guys in the league that are off 25-30% from their
career
> > > averages. At least not "valuable" players. Those players dont stay
around
> > > long enough.
>
> > stockton, malone, horry, jim jackson, coleman, gill, weatherspoon,
>
> please post their stats and show me how they are all 25-30% from their
> career averages.
well, first of all, jordan is not down 25-30% across the board on all his
career averages, scoring is his biggest drop, from 30 PPG to 20 PPG. he's
actually not far off on APG and RPG,. that said, karl malone's scoring and
rebounding are down 20% and 25%, respectively; stockton's scoring and
assists are down 15% and 25%; horry's scoring is down 20%; jim jackson's
scoring and assists are both down 50%; coleman's scoring is down 40%; gill's
scoring and rebounding are down 35% and 25%; and weatherspoon's scoring is
down 45%.
by the way, all of these players--every one of them--is shooting a
significantly worse percentage than their career average.
Its not that I dont believe you, but I dont have the
> time to look it up today. I wouldnt call Jackson, Gill and
> Weatherspoon valuable though.
actually they're all valuable, not stars of course, but good role players
are extremely useful and they all are very good at it.
Horry has his moments, but overall his
> play hasnt been as good either.
a big part of his value is on the defensive end, unfortunately there are not
a lot of stats kept to measure defensive production. his offensive game
today is probably the worst it's ever been since he's been in the league.
Coleman has been injured, and this is
> a case where I do agree with you that his injuries have led to his
> skills diminishing.
that and age, he's getting up there for an NBA player.
Stockton and Malone may well be retired after
> this year, though Malone looks like he's gonna go for the scoring
> record so he may not.
i bet stockton plays at least one more season, malone will keep playing most
likely until he either can't because of injury or he gets the alltime
scoring record, whichever comes first.
> > > not at all. If I looked, Im sure I could apply it to pretty much
anyone
> > in the
> > > NBA. Jordan is almost one of the exceptions to the rule because even
at
> > 2/3 of
> > > his talents, he's still pretty damn good.
>
> > you're so close, but you put that "almost" in there.
>
> that's as far as I'll go.
>
> > but you're being inconsistent in your assessment of basketball skills,
> > judging jordan more harshly than other players. if you just had just
said
> > "i wish jordan wouldn't have come back because i don't like him" fine,
> > you're entireld to the opinion.
>
> but I don't dislike him, far from it. He's one of the greatest to
> ever play the game, if not the greatest. (I certainly do not want to
> get into a "who's the greatest ever" discussion.)
just for kicks, i'll throw it out there that i don't think he's the greatest
ever, it's really not even that close.
> > but you're not, you're applying an
> > arbitrary standard (which is fine) but not consistently (which is not
fine).
>
> I said I would argue that any player, not injured and with more than
> 4-5 years in the NBA playing at or less than 2/3 of their abilities
> should retire. How is that not consistent?
it's not consistent when there are a lot mroe players than just jordan that
fit that description and you're not calling for them to retire as well.
> > what does it matter, career best or career average, seriously?
>
> oh man, after all this time you're going to ask this now? A player
> can have a career year where they average a significant amount more
> than they do over the rest of their career. If a player has 1 year
> where they average 20ppg and the other 9 years of their career they
> average 9ppg, for a 10 year average of 10ppg, you cant just judge them
> on their 20ppg year, its not representative of their career. Besides,
> if we did that, Jordan would be down to be playing at only 54% of his
> ability.
but i don't care if he's playing at 54 percent of his past ability, i'm just
interested in if he's still got value as a player, which he clearly does.
he's actually a very good player, probably top twenty-five leaguewide.
the only reason i'm talking about shaq being at only 75 percent of his usual
production is because you brought up the whole idea of wanting a player to
retire when he goes below a certain threshold relative to past performance.
> >an average is usually good for predicting future events but they
> aren't >infallible and when it comes down to it, averages don't make
> players valuable, >performance does. an average is just a reflection
> of past performace, i'm >much more interested in what a player can do
> for a team today.
>
> averages are representative of a player's value. But I do agree that
> it is only a reflection of past performance, and does not account for
> injuries and aging and everything else.
exactly, really it kind of is a moot point for judging a player today except
when it comes to negotiating contracts or lookign to make trades. (and
looking at jordan's month splits, he's been getting better as the year goes
along).
> > > >"ben wallace is the best player in the game! he leads the league in
> > > rebounds!"
> > >
> > > What does your statement have anything to do with a players averages?
>
> > i'm just showing you how stats get misused all the time. it's
> > easy--remove them from context and extrapolate any meaning you want.
>
> but you haven't misused them at all. You said he was the best player
> in the game because he leads the league in rebounds. If your
> definition of best player in the game is who rebounds the best, then
> you're right.
but value is not defined by rebounds alone, just because someone says it is
doesn't make it true.
It has nothing to do with the stats, it has everthing
> to do with the vagueness of your definition of what makes someone the
> best player in the league.
there you go, the vagueness of the definition makes it completely
meaningless. the statement is null and void because it in essence says
nothing.
> > > >player X scores 30 points per game. is player X a good player?
>
> > > yes he is, ask Allen Iverson if you need clarification.
>
> > it's a serious question. is player X a good player?
>
> in today's NBA, yes regardless of what else he gives or doesnt give to
> the team.
nope. the right answer is "not enough information to tell."
see, because we don't know how efficiently player X shoots to get those 30
points, nor do we know if this player plays any defense (not to mention a
ton of other things). if this player avearages 35 shot attempts to earn his
30 PPG while playing horrible defense, the player is actually a very bad
player and is doing more to hurt his team than help it.
> > > >>Scoring title is based on average, assists
> > > >> too, rebounds as well I believe. Steals? Blocks? Oh shit, its
all
> > > >> on average. Lots of trivia.
>
> > > >now you're getting it.
>
> > > no, I was just mocking you.
>
> > and that's too bad, because ironically you were right.
>
> it is right, all except the "lots of trivia" part.
you do understand what that means, don't you?
> > comparing jordan to vin baker is just plain dumb, basically you're
judging
> > one of the best players in the league vs one of the worst and trying to
> > equivocate them.
>
> I'm not comparing Jordan to Baker. I just applied my statement to
> another NBA player. You said I wasn't applying it equally and I used
> Baker as an example. It actually pains me to use Baker too. I've met
> him several times (an ex-co worker of mine was related to him) and
> he's an extremely nice guy. Its a shame his skills are evidently gone
> and he needs to retire.
he seems like a very sensitive person, it is too bad that so much talent
seems to be going to waste.
>
> > >Jordan broke his leg in 85-86. He seemed to have had some decent years
after that.
>
> > how did he do in 85-86? looks like he missed about 60 games to me, i'm
> > guessing that's due to a temporary decline in skills.
>
> what you fail to grasp is that the skills did not decline. Skills
> just do not temporarily decline because of an injury.
sure they do. what skills did jordan possess before the injury? among them
were: tremendous speed, incredible leaping ability, and a good jumpshot.
when he broke his leg and (i presume) had to wear a cast, what do you think
happened to that speed, leaping ability, and jumpshot?
If you want to
> say he couldnt produce because of the injury, I agree, but he didnt
> miss the games because of his decline in skills.
then why did he miss the games?
> > > >what, you don't think that players don't play as well when playing
> > > hurt or recovering from injury on-court?
>
> > > depends on how well they recover and the severity of the injury.
>
> > but can we at least agree that players *tend* to not play as well when
hurt?
> > i'm not saying *every* player, i'm saying that a correlation exists
between
> > injury and performance just as much as a correlation exists between age
and
> > perfomance.
>
> a correlation definitely exists between injury and performance. Some
> are temporary, and some are permanent.
all right.
> > you're doing the same thing as the person who says nelson's the best
coach,
> > you're omitting salient facts because those facts don't support your
> > conclusion.
>
> look, I'm not omitting other facts. I have already said if the
> decision for him to come back was based on every factor (money,
> desire, etc.) then he should have definitely returned. But my
> original statement was meant only in the context of his basketball
> abilities.
>
> > when did i ever say that a player can't return to the player he was
before
> > injury? the example of jordan breaking his leg is a good one. his
> > abilities to run, jump, shoot, and play basketball were severely
diminished,
> > but only for a period of months. he was better than ever after he
recovered
> > from the injury.
>
> I guess we're just playing semantics games. To me when a player is
> hurt, his skills arent severely diminished.
yes they are, see above.
The skills are still
> there, he just cannot perform due to the injury. The skills may prove
> to be diminished, but because of the severity of the injury. I view
> it as the skills are still there until they show that they aren't and
> I believe you're saying they are diminished until they return.
of course i am, does it make any sense to phrase it any other way?
I dont
> have a problem with either view.
>
> > why would you rather look at career numbers than recent seasons? which
do
> > you think is a better reflection of the player shaq is today--numbers
from
> > as long ago as 11 years ago or numbers from as long ago as 3 years?
>
> because career numbers reflect the player in all stages of his career.
> If you only look at a 3 year average, and that player is declining
> slowly, then he'll still be within range of the last 3 years
> statistically, when in reality he's down quite a bit from his career
> numbers.
that wasn't what i asked, i asked which would probably be a better
representation of the player *today*.
> > > no, of course not because Jordan isnt injured.
>
> > sure he is, tendinitis in the knees and he also has back problems (he's
> > played in all games this season but left one earlier this year when i
think
> > the back flared up badly after only 8 minutes i think).
>
> he's still averaging 36 minutes I believe. Maybe its 33, I cant look
> it up right now.
either way, i think it stands to reason that playing through nagging
injuries like those are likely diminishing his skills and production to some
degree.
> > i think kobe's been playing hurt as well (he says he is and he looks
like it
> > as well), which might help explain why he has been playing very
> > inconsistently lately with a lot of poor games.
>
> hard to tell with Kobe. The 40 point games and long season might be
> taking a toll on him.
right. some injuries aren't of the "pop goes the knee" variety, they're of
the wear-and-tear variety. both tend to affect player skills and
production.
> > > [injury] was not a condition of what I said originally.
>
> > right, "don't look at those facts over there, they don't help my
argument."
>
> if a player is injured, its certainly a reason why their stats may
> decline. That is why it wasn't a condition of what I said originally.
but it's part of NBA life, probably more than we even know. all that to
say, you're willing to give a pass to people who are injured, so why not
jordan when he clearly is battling injuries?
> > > >hey, i wonder who's taken more scoring opps.
> > >
> > > why dont you look it up? Since Shaq is shooting 10% better than
Jordan,
> > and
> > > Shaq only has 14 more field goals made, then I'd say Jordan has had
more
> > > scoring opps.
> >
> > bzzzt.
>
> Shaq has less shot attempts but more with free throws. That's because
> Jordan doesnt drive and get fouled anymore. Shaq is averaging more
> points per attempt though, much more.
he's the most efficient player in the league, probably by a significant
amount.
> > > yet he's played in every single game this season. Funny how that
works.
> > > Injured players don't play every game and 36 minutes per game.
>
> > sure they do, i already explained how he and kobe are both playing
through
> > injuries right now. not every injury is a broken leg.
>
> and not every claim of an injury is an injury.
do you think they're lying?
> > sure we're talking about the same thing, you just want to pretend that a
> > player sitting on the bench in street clothes is valuable because of his
> > potential value even though is actual value is currently zero.
>
> despite the fact Ive already said that a player sitting on the bench
> not playing has no value.
okay, cool. then why are you not counting shaq's 15 zero-value games
against his 70 productive games?
> > > I swear I've said several times that I was talking from a purely
> > > basketball standpoint.
>
> > yep, with your hypocritical standards, picking and choosing whom you
want to
> > retire.
>
> the same standards that I've had from the beginning. I simply said I
> believe he shouldnt have come back from a basketball standpoint,
> nothing about anyone else that should or shouldnt retire.
you set up your standards and then blanched when i applied them to shaq,
that's hypocrisy.
> > sorry, didn't mean to scare you by looking at something other than
(shudder)
> > "basketball."
>
> sorry, didnt mean to confuse you by repeatedly saying that basketball
> was the only thing I was looking at when I made my comments.
but it's not "basketball" you want to discuss, it's a tiny part of the game
of basketball omitting injuries that keep a player out of the lineup and
ignoring how much players cost the team in salary.
> > > I didnt bring it up because I was only talking about one area, his
> > abilities.
>
> > yep, and you looked at it hypocritically, apply one standard to one
player
> > and a different one to another.
>
> I've applied the exact same standard to each player I've talked about.
> Sorry if anything that you do not agree with 100% makes something
> hypocritical, but that's your issue.
that isn't what makes in hypocritical, it's the inconsistencies that do.
> > > If you want to debate every other point, then we can do that. It wont
be
> > as
> > > fun, cause I'll likely agree with you on most every point.
>
> > then what's there to debate, we agree, let's move on.
>
> you haven't proved capable of moving on. Why else would we be
> rehashing the same material 20 times?
you keep saying the same stuff, i keep refuting it. we can do it again if
you like.
I already agreed with you on
> everything else besides Jordan's basketball abilities and that you
> think Shaq is in decline from his career numbers.
you're the one framing shaq's numbers so that it looks like he's not in
decline from his peak season in 99-00, why you're interested in protecting
shaq at the expense of dealing with reality, i don't know.
> > > I'm not ignoring it, but like Ive repeatedly said, we're not talking
about
> > the
> > > same things. I more than wonder why you cant grasp the "fact" that I
was
> > only
> > > talking about things from one standpoint: his basketball abilities.
>
> > and here's the part where i say, yes i understand that, you're just
being a
> > hypocrite about it.
>
> and here's the part where I say, where have I been a hypocrite, and
> you reply with, "I've already told you that", and don't give a reason.
i've explained it at least twice in this very post, but feel free to lie
about that as well.
> > > I'm not the one that has made it into more than it is. You keep
trying to
> > blow
> > > this into an all out discussion on why I should think Jordan shoud
have
> > come
> > > back, when I dont disagree on it for any other reason that I think he
> > should
> > > have gone out of the game by hitting the game winning shot to win an
NBA
> > > finals.
>
> > and that jordan shouldnt play because he's "2/3" the player he once was
and
> > that he's making his team worse in the long run and a lot of other
nonsense.
> > did you forget about that stuff?
>
> that's all the result of him coming back.
oh, so you get to introduce more elements into the discussion at will, but
when i do it, it's me trying to "blow this into an all out discussion on why
I should think Jordan shoud have come back." more hypocrisy, you're good at
that.
brink
<loone...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7ff76820.03040...@posting.google.com...
> "brink" <wrote:
>
> >>Looneyto0n wrote:
>
> > no, because the NBA exists only to entertain you.
>
> exactly. What else would it exist for? If it didnt entertain me and
> millions of other fans, it wouldnt exist at all.
but you're trying to speak on behalf of millions of fans, most of whom
apparently disagree with you.
> > > its much better for a 24 year old player to come play for a team
because
> > he'll
> > > be there longer than a 39 year old player. The franchise can build
around
> > that
> > > player. The Whiz built themselves around a 39 year old and now need
to
> > rebuild
> > > after 2 seasons. Great idea.
>
> > yep, none of the players were on the team before jordan was there.
>
> that has nothing to do with rebuilding.
sure it does, unless by "rebuilding" you mean "getting rid of everyone and
acquiring all new players."
> > > >guess which team leads the league in road attendance while selling
out
> > all its
> > > home games and getting above average ratings for its national
>telecasts.
>
> > > because they want to see the old man once more before he retires.
>
> > now you can read minds and can speak for thousands and thousands of
people.
>
> why else would anyone want to see a mediocre team? I cant believe you
> would even argue this point.
right, i'm sure that the longtime season ticket holders got their tickets
way back in the day because they knew that one day jordan would be playing
with the wizards and they figured that would be the best way to get tickets.
i mean, the fact that teams have fans of their own doesn't help sell out
these games.
> > > Miami, Cleveland, Atlanta Chicago, Denver, Memphis, Knicks, Rockets,
> > Warriors,
> > > Sonics, Rockets and Raptors. That's actually 12.
> >
> > three of those teams are very much still aliuve for the 8th spot in teh
> > west, so how can they have had no shot at the playoffs before the
season?
>
> some of the teams overachieved.
by whose definition? the sonics made the playoffs last year, you can bet
that the expectation in the organization was "we're a young team and will
get better" and that making the playoffs was part of the plan. the rockets
have been a "team on the verge" for years now, having francis hurt was the
biggest reason they were a poor team last year. looks to me like they have
at least an even shot at making the playoffs.
You said to name teams that had no
> shot at the beginning of the season. Those were the teams I would
> have named at the beginning of the season. How many of those made the
> playoffs?
would you have bet your life on it?
>
> > and the east is so weak you dont even have to have a winning team to
make
> > the playoffs, so how can you include teams like atlanta, miami, toronto,
and
> > new york most of which have unexpectedly lost substantial player time to
> > injury?
>
> Atlanta, Miami, Toronto and New York may have never even been at .500
> any time in the NBA season.
like it matters in the east. the final playoff spot will probably go to a
39-43 team.
> Miami has 23 wins.
they also have no alonzo mourning and have missed eddie jones for
substantial time this season. do you think the lakers would make the
playoffs this season if shaq missed as many games as alonzo?
You're just reaching
> now. The bottom feeders had no chance at the start of the season.
> I'd even say those same teams minus the Rockets and Warriors will be
> in the same spot next season. Add Washington to that list.
i sure wouldn't bet against new york, atlanta, or even toronto, i don't see
the east getting much better and both new york and toronto had some pretty
bad luck this year.
shoot, you can turn the equation totally upside down and say that it's
probably not a great certainty that the nets, celtics, magic, or bucks will
make the playoffs next year--that's half of the east playoff teams.
> > > The Warriors surprised a lot of people as well. There's only maybe 2
or 3
> > > debatable teams in there. The others are easy answers.
>
> > i see five "easy answers" and then i still wouldnt have bet my life
against
> > any of them.
>
> as easy I would say: Miami, Cleveland, Chicago, Denver, Memphis,
> Knicks, Raptors, Rockets and Warriors. The Warriors played better
> than anyone thought, but that still would have been an easy bet at the
> beginning of the year. No one knew how Ming would play in the NBA.
> And IMO the Rockets overachieved this year. What teams don't you
> think would have been easy to put there at the beginning of the year?
knicks, raptors, and rockets. i probably could have gone either way on
miami, again they've had some bad luck missing mourning and jones. 40-42
wins isn't unthinkable for a team like that.
> > i was never very impressed with hamilton personally, maybe they weren't
> > either.
>
> that's possible, but why trade a 25 year old that hasnt hit his prime
> yet?
i don't know, like i said we weren't privvy to nearly as much info as jordan
and the rest of the organization. why did jerry west trade away two pretty
good young players for one pretty good young player in mike miller? on the
surface, it looks like a dumb trade to me, but jerry's pretty smart, i have
to believe that he knows something we don't. it doesn't mean that the trade
will end being a great one for the grizz, just that i'm sure there's more
reasoning behind it than "i better make a trade, any trade."
> > remember, jordan gets to see these guys up close and personal, sees
> > their work ethic and willingness to sacrifice off the court, maybe he
didnt
> > like what he saw in him. i don't know and you don't know either.
>
> true, but both you and I already think he's a poor GM (you said it),
> so there has to be some reason why we think that. His player moves
> have been questionable at best so far.
there's no logical inconsistency between me thinking he's a poor GM (i do)
and him seeing something in stackhouse that he valued over hamilton (he
probably did).
> > > >the wizards had the number one pick a whole two seasons ago.
>
> > > yeah, the year before Jordan got there. Last year they picked 13th I
> > believe.
> > > So like I said, Jordan already cost them another high draft choice,
and
> > will do
> > > so again this year.
>
> > they were in the lottery last season, jordan cost them percentage points
in
> > winning a high draft choice, not a high draft choice itself. it was not
> > impossible for them to have even the first pick.
>
> he still cost them a shot. They had about a 3% shot of the first
> pick, IIRC. If he wouldn't have played, they may have had a 25% shot
> at yhe #1 pick, and would have been in the top 3 if they had the worst
> record. With only 3% of the ping pong balls in the hopper, IMO he
> definitely cost them a higher pick.
he may have, you certainly have the odds on your side, but like i said i
wouldn't bet my life against it. if someone handed me a gun and said "i'll
pay you a million dollars if you put that gun to your head and pull the
trigger and there is only a 3 percent chance there's a bullet in the
chamber" i'd probably turn it down.
> > we've had less than two seasons to judge kwame brown and to be fair less
> > than five for olowokandi. chances are that olowokandi won't get too
much
> > better, he's already 25 and pretty fully-devleoped. kwame is 20 so he
has a
> > ton of potential growth.
>
> yeah, but Michael has already called Kwame out a few times, so he's
> not coming along as quickly as Jordan thought he could. He may still
> though.
he's got the raw talent, but it takes more than that to succeed in the
league.
> Someone is going to overpay for Olowokandi.
probably, but in the land of the blind, the one-dimensional center is king.
> > you have to be pretty bad to be the worst team though, doesnt cleveland
have
> > like 12 wins total? and then you still arent guaranteed a "superstar"
> > player.
>
> I was referring to last year. I dunno who had the worst record then.
> But even if they were in the top 3, it would be decent this year.
this year's a bit of an analogy, of course lebron seems like a "sure thing"
but there's also that european kid that everyone's going nuts over, he's
apparently jaw dropping as well. i wonder if carmelo anthony could go as
high as top three?
> It would have
> > been
> > > much better if they would have at least had a chance to screw the
picks up
> > > instead of not being to make the attempt.
> >
> > no, the opposite is true, if they pick joe suckson with a high pick they
> > have to pay him more.
>
> ok, so just select mid round players. sheesh.
better that than picking bad players high. at least you don't have to pick
the bad players you pick low as much.
> > > if they picked at #9 I would guess Stoudemire.
>
> > well, the clippers were one better at #8 and they took chris wilcox,
he's a
> > big PF type just like stoudemire so it's not like they were drafting for
PG
> > or something.
>
> they traded for Miller, they didnt need a PG.
right, all the more reason to take a "burgeoning superstar" like amare
stoudemire at #8.
wait, you mean to tell me that no one knew how good amare would be until the
season started? i call do-over for the clips... they need a *lot* more
help than the suns.
> > problem is, jordan seems like a pretty poor GM so all bets are off. who
> > knows, they might have blown it and traded their pick for moochie norris
or
> > something because they "like the way he hustles."
>
> no argument there.
he's not the first superstar player to be a poor judge of talent.
> > you think GS might be having second thoughts about taking dunleavy at #3
> > rather than butler?
>
> the only reason I can think of why they wouldn't is because they
> already have Richardson and Arenas. But Im sure they'd still take
> Butler.
or at least stoudemire.
> > there you go, drafting is not simple, there's actually a good deal of
luck
> > involved. have some good luck, look like a genius. have some bad luck,
> > look like an idiot (sam bowie comes to mind, that was definitely some
bad
> > luck.)
>
> granted. I still think Battier will be a better pro than Brown
> though.
kwame might have more physical gifts but he just doesn't seem to "get
it"--at least yet, he's young. battier on the other hand is more a of a
steady, heady player, which is underrated.
> > no all three were basketball related. if i were to bring up that jordan
> > should play because it brings peace to the middle east, that would not
be
> > basketball related.
>
> ok, ya got me...basketball "skills" related.
>
> > it's not my "opinion" that players are worthless while sitting on the
bench
> > in street clothes, it's fact.
>
> if those players are wothless, how did Luc Longley get traded several
> times when he was too injured to play? Just using your own logic
> against you now. =)
ah, you did get me... salary cap ballast *does* come in handy now and
then... ;-)
> > it's not my "opinion" that revenues and
> > ratings *are* are the primary goals of the NBA, it's fact.
>
> but its not relevant to the discussion.
>
> >it's not my "opinion" that a player playing at 2/3 of his previous
> production can still be very valuable, it's fact.
>
> its your opinion that he's still "very" valuable.
not really, i can show it, that's what stats are for. the trick is to show
all of them and not blanch at the bad ones because they might hurt my point.
20/6/4, 45% from the field, good defender, nothing looks out of whack in
turnovers, missed games, etc. yep, he's very valuable.
the lakers could really use a guy like him right now actually. very good
jumpshooter, good defender, smart player, knows the triangle, can step in at
SF (glaring lakers weakness right now), likes phil, knows how to play in the
playoffs and under pressure.
> > but let's ignore those things, they don't support your conclusion.
>
> no, they arent relevant to the discussion. Dont know how many times I
> have to say I was only talking about it from a basketball skills
> standpoint.
>
> > you're welcome to peer at the issue through the wrong end of a
telescope,
> > have fun with that.
>
> that was the only way I was viewing it, a smaller issue in the scope
> of things. Why does everything have to encompass the entire
> reasoning?
because that's the nature of true understanding, not just comprehending part
of the issue but the issue as a whole.
> > >The Wiz are perennial losers, and the Bulls were coming off 6
championships > in 8 years
> > > when Jordan left. Think there might be a wee bit of difference? Nah.
>
> > sure, it's just that i'm using evidecne on my side, past history and
> > performance, which i'm using as reasoning for my prediction.
>
> but as you said in another argument, past history does not indicate
> future performance. Now that you've contradicted yourself, which is
> it?
it might seem that way to you, but here's the difference--i'm not claiming
this as "fact." i'm making a prediction. see, at this point, my prediction
is neither right nor wrong. at some point it will be come apparent whether
it was right or wrong, but that's about a year away. i may be entirely
right and season tickets and wizards jerseys will continue to sell like
hotcakes for another season or two. you may be entirely right and they
can't give em away after may. maybe it will be somehwere in between, who
knows.
but i hope you'll agree that a prediction supported by evidence (this can
include past history and performance) tends to be more persuasive than one
supported by nothing other than the predictor's word.
you're free to make a contradictory prediction, knock yourself out, only
time will prove you right or wrong. for the time being, it's probably a
good thing to support your prediction with some basis in fact though.
> >your evidence appears to be "i want it to happen."
>
> the difference is that I never said it was evidence, and wasn't trying
> to pass my opinion off as fact.
okay, that's your right, just as much as i have a right to say you're just
opining in the wind.
> > > you confuse me for you. I'm not the one trying to pass off anything
for a
> > > fact. I said my opinion on Jordan and you countered with how wrong I
was
> > and
> > > how you were right. Care to wager on my speculating abilities? I'll
> > wager you
> > > 50 bucks that the Wizards do not win as many games next year as they
> > finish
> > > with this year.
>
> > i'll go double that with you that sometime in the next 2-5 years they
win
> > more games than this year, which before you snipped it was what we were
> > talking about--not just next season but the future.
>
> I'd go 2 years, but not 5. Eventually they are bound to win more
> games than this season, they didnt win that many games this season for
> me to think that they couldnt be better than that in 4-5 years. I'm
> not one to say that past history would indicate future performance.
i think even two years might not be a very safe bet, the east is in so much
flux who knows what will happen.
> > while we're at it, why don't we bet on whether or not the mavs will win
more
> > or less games next year, because after all, winning fewer games in *one
> > whole season* is proof that the franchise is in big trouble.
>
> I'll take the under. If the Wizards don't replace who they have, then
> they may not even reach 1/2 the victories. The Wizards have been in
> trouble for years, decades even. They almost got out of it, but GM
> Jordan looks like he'll keep them there for a while.
even a blind squirrel finds some nuts sometimes, maybe he'll draft an impact
player by accident and everyone will be hailing him as "genius jordan" in
the seasons to come.
> > there is no "proving you wrong" on your opinion that jordan shouldn't
play
> > because there is no right or wrong to that issue.
>
> so why are you so vehemently debating it?
just because you can't prove something right or wrong doesn't mean it
doesn't merit vigorous debate. there's no proving whether or not God
exists, i don't see the opposing sides saying "i'm sick of this debate, it's
unwinnable."
> >there is a proving you wrong with regard to the fact that you insist
> that stats devoid of context have relevant meaning and that financial
> issues are not >inextricably interwoven with game issues in the NBA.
>
> because you're incapable of seperating a part from the whole.
like i said, usually you get a better understanding of a situation by
looking the whole, not just an isolated part.
> > BTW, i'm not the one snipping chunks from the discussion.
>
> I'm snipping it because there's no need to have 1600 line posts.
fine, it doesn't really bother me, just don't accuse me of snipping cause
i'm not doing it. honest.
> > > they traded Hamilton because they were trying to be contenders this
year.
> > I
> > > dont think they needed to do it, but evidently Jordan felt he did.
>
> > like i said, you don't know it, i don't know it, it's a guess at best.
>
> and that was a shot at Jordan the GM, not the player.
i know it was, and you still don't know. neither do i.
> > > like I said, they mortgaged their future for the present. It's gotten
> > them a
> > > mediocre team that looks like it will need to be totally rebuilt
again.
> > How
> > > many times can they do this?
>
> > how high can you count? (that's a jab at the wiz, not you)
>
> I guess you have a good point there. They had an opportunity to
> rebuild immediately with Jordan, and to try to get some good players
> around them. It just looks like they didnt get there and will have to
> start over.
some of the strongest teams these days came out of the ashes of
disaster--actually the lakers are a decent example of this.
> > but IMO they are in no
> > > better position right now as far as draft picks than they were 2 years
> > ago. If
> > > you say that Jordan's cost to the team is "the most ignorant crap"
you've
> > ever
> > > read, then that's your perogative. It doesnt change the obvious, that
the
> > > Wizards would have picked higher in the draft had Jordan not played.
> >
> > wow, not only can you see into the future and read other people's minds,
but
> > you can know for fact alternate realities that would have occurred if
past
> > events had been different.
>
> I did say in my opinion. I dont think its that much of a stretch to
> say that they would have had a higher draft pick had Jordan not played
> though.
yes, but that's far from "obvious." obvious indicates certainty, the only
thing certain is a higher probablility of that event having occurred.
> > first of all, from what i understand, the team that has currently won
three
> > consecutive championships and is working on a fourth is also looking to
> > "rebuild" much of its team next season, so the idea that losing today is
> > good because it helps teams "rebuild" in the future is a dubious
argument.
>
> the Lakers have 1 thing the Wiz do not though, a core set of players,
> even if that is only 2 players.
that and a pretty good chance at winning a championship this year.
> > second, you still haven't shown how having jordan play has hurt the team
in
> > its effort to "rebuild." he's not taking up much cap space and the team
> > didn't have to trade anyone to get him. why does his playing hurt the
team
> > next season?
>
> because they wont have the draft pick they would have had he not
> played. I am assuming they would have been worse than they are this
> year had Jordan not played.
that's probably true, but again that's assuming there's no value in having
won the 35-40 games they won this season while battling for a playoff spot.
> > > >in fact it's made the team a lot better for at least these two
seasons.
> > > in the short, short term that's true.
> > >
> > > >jordan's taking exactly $1M per season cap room.
> > >
> > > and once he leaves, that is an extremely bad thing. Now they have to
> > replace
> > > his production without the cap room of his salary to do so. Do you
> > understand
> > > why that is bad or are we going to have a lengthy debate over this
too?
> > Hell,
> > > for the salary he is making, he might as well pay forever.
> >
> > good point. let's use one of your favorite new phrases, "cost/benefit
> > analysis."
>
> > guess who's the better player by the cost/benefit analysis: shaq or
jordan?
>
> no argument there. Jordan's the biggest bargain in the NBA for what
> he produces.
>
> > so you're blaming micahel for giving the team a great deal and basically
> > helping the team. makes perfect sense.
>
> I'm not blaming him. It is just going to hurt the team in the future.
but so does any team that wins and yet doesn't achieve its short-term goal
(whether that's winning a title, or making the second round, or just making
the playoffs, etc)
> > >How they drafted from there could have changed the entire team.
> >
> > yep, they couldve taken mike dunleavy. NBA finals, here we come.
>
> and I will counter by asking you if they would have been in any worse
> situation had they taken Dunleavy?
he sure hasn't been too great shakes, so sure, why not?
Draft picks fail, I understand
> that. But I'd rather pick higher if I can. Even if it means a nigger
> bust if they dont work out.
i'm going to overlook that unfortunate typo there... ;-)
changing the subject--that was a nice win over dallas tonight, wasn't it?
perfect example of why even though shaq doesn't deserve MVP this year, he's
probably the most valuable player to have on your team when it really comes
down to it. unbelieveably efficient offense, great defense, acquiring tons
of fouls on all of their frontcourt players, rebounding like crazy, just
basically becoming a one-man percentage-buster.
LoOneYto0n
>>loone...@aol.com wrote
>> exactly. What else would it exist for? If it didnt entertain me and
? millions of other fans, it wouldnt exist at all.
>but you're trying to speak on behalf of millions of fans, most of whom
apparently disagree with you.
they disagree with me that the NBA is only entertainment? I wouldn't bet on
that.
>> that has nothing to do with rebuilding.
>sure it does, unless by "rebuilding" you mean "getting rid of everyone and
>acquiring all new players."
by rebuilding I mean replacing non useful players with useful ones. Do you
think the Wiz are better off now than they were 2 years ago? I don't.
>> > now you can read minds and can speak for thousands and thousands of
people.
>> why else would anyone want to see a mediocre team? I cant believe you
>> would even argue this point.
>right, i'm sure that the longtime season ticket holders got their tickets
way back in the day because they knew that one day jordan would be playing
>with the wizards and they figured that would be the best way to get tickets.
>i mean, the fact that teams have fans of their own doesn't help sell out
these games.
they are the biggest road draw. Why? Only because of Jordan. No one else on
that team is worth watching on a daily basis. They sold out all their home
games. Why? Jordan. They werent selling out before Jordan joined the team.
>> some of the teams overachieved.
>by whose definition?
mine, and many others. You don't think Golden State overachieved?
>the sonics made the playoffs last year, you can bet
that the expectation in the organization was "we're a young team and will
>get better" and that making the playoffs was part of the plan.
making the playoffs is part of every team's plan, but some arent realistic.
"we're a young team and will get better" means they are rebuilding. They only
have 7 players left of the 16 they had on their 2001-02 roster. Thats a big
turnover for a team that's young.
>the rockets have been a "team on the verge" for years now,
"team on the verge" = still not there. "For years now" = taking longer than
anticipated.
>having francis hurt was the biggest reason they were a poor team last year.
looks to me like they have at least an even shot at making the playoffs.
1 1/2 games out with 7 games to go against 4 playoff teams, and Seattle,
Memphis and Denver. I dont think they'll make it.
>>You said to name teams that had no shot at the beginning of the season.
Those were the teams I would
>> have named at the beginning of the season. How many of those made the
>> playoffs?
>would you have bet your life on it?
Miami, Cleveland, Chicago, Denver, Memphis, Golden State and the Knicks I would
have.
>> Atlanta, Miami, Toronto and New York may have never even been at .500
>> any time in the NBA season.
>like it matters in the east. the final playoff spot will probably go to a
39-43 team.
and none of the teams above will be real close to 39 wins except the Knicks who
may be 3-6 games behind that.
>> Miami has 23 wins.
>they also have no alonzo mourning and have missed eddie jones for
substantial time this season.
you think they should have had some kind of contingency plan for Mourning not
being there? Its not the first season he's missed.
>do you think the lakers would make the playoffs this season if shaq missed as
many games as alonzo?
nope, but they'd be closer than the Heat.
>>You're just reaching
>> now. The bottom feeders had no chance at the start of the season.
>> I'd even say those same teams minus the Rockets and Warriors will be
>> in the same spot next season. Add Washington to that list.
>i sure wouldn't bet against new york, atlanta, or even toronto, i don't see
>the east getting much better and both new york and toronto had some pretty
>bad luck this year.
new york had pretty bad luck? McDyess is always hurt and they have no clue
salary cap wise and are stuck for a few more years. They didnt make the
playoffs last year either. They arent a good team right now.
>shoot, you can turn the equation totally upside down and say that it's
probably not a great certainty that the nets, celtics, magic, or bucks will
>make the playoffs next year--that's half of the east playoff teams.
I'd bet on all those teams making the playoffs over NY, Atlanta and Toronto.
>What teams don't you think would have been easy to put there at the beginning
of the year?
>knicks, raptors, and rockets. i probably could have gone either way on
miami, again they've had some bad luck missing mourning and jones. >40-42 wins
isn't unthinkable for a team like that.
Mourning announced he wasnt playing before the season began. They were screwed
right there. Eddie Jones isn't a difference maker. He hasn't been a
difference make anywhere he's played. The Knicks are just a bad team with no
organization. The Rockets and Raptors could at least have a case made for
them.
>why did jerry west trade away two pretty good young players for one pretty
good young player in mike miller?
ESPN reported that West was in love with Miller's game. Gooden also didnt
project out to be the PF that West was looking for. That according to ESPN as
well.
>> I was referring to last year. I dunno who had the worst record then.
>> But even if they were in the top 3, it would be decent this year.
>this year's a bit of an analogy, of course lebron seems like a "sure thing"
I'm one of the few that thinks James is not going to be as good as the majority
thinks he will be. I don't believe he will be the best player picked in this
year's draft.
>but there's also that european kid that everyone's going nuts over, he's
apparently jaw dropping as well. i wonder if carmelo anthony could go >as high
as top three?
depends on what the top 3 teams picking need I guess.
>wait, you mean to tell me that no one knew how good amare would be until the
>season started? i call do-over for the clips... they need a *lot* more
help than the suns.
I never said teams dont make mistakes drafting.
>> the only reason I can think of why they wouldn't is because they
>> already have Richardson and Arenas. But Im sure they'd still take
>> Butler.
>or at least stoudemire.
definitely Stoudemire.
>kwame might have more physical gifts but he just doesn't seem to "get
it"--at least yet, he's young. battier on the other hand is more a of a
>steady, heady player, which is underrated.
did you look at Battier's stats this year? He makes Iverson look like Shaq,
shooting percentage wise.
>> >it's not my "opinion" that a player playing at 2/3 of his previous
production can still be very valuable, it's fact.
>> its your opinion that he's still "very" valuable.
>not really, i can show it, that's what stats are for. the trick is to show
all of them and not blanch at the bad ones because they might hurt my point.
>20/6/4, 45% from the field, good defender, nothing looks out of whack in
>turnovers, missed games, etc. yep, he's very valuable.
ok, in the interest of ending this thread, I'll concede he's valuable.
>the lakers could really use a guy like him right now actually.
I dunno. For all the things he's accomplished, do you think he could play 3rd
fiddle? I'm not saying he couldn't or wouldn't, but why should he?
>> that was the only way I was viewing it, a smaller issue in the scope
>> of things. Why does everything have to encompass the entire
>> reasoning?
>because that's the nature of true understanding, not just comprehending part
>of the issue but the issue as a whole.
but sometimes things have to be taken as they meant. I already said that I
only meant them in the context of his basketball skills and that if it was
based on all of the factors that I wouldnt have said what I did. I agreed with
you.
>> > >The Wiz are perennial losers, and the Bulls were coming off 6
championships > in 8 years
>> > > when Jordan left. Think there might be a wee bit of difference? Nah.
>> > sure, it's just that i'm using evidecne on my side, past history and
>> > performance, which i'm using as reasoning for my prediction.
>> but as you said in another argument, past history does not indicate
>> future performance. Now that you've contradicted yourself, which is
>> it?
>it might seem that way to you, but here's the difference--i'm not claiming
this as "fact." i'm making a prediction.
I'm not claiming it as a fact either. If it seems that way, then I'm
clarifying it as my opinion right now.
>see, at this point, my prediction is neither right nor wrong. at some point
it will be come apparent whether it was right or wrong, but that's >about a
year away. i may be entirely right and season tickets and wizards jerseys will
continue to sell like hotcakes for another season or >two. you may be entirely
right and they can't give em away after may. maybe it will be somehwere in
between, who knows.
exactly.
>but i hope you'll agree that a prediction supported by evidence (this can
include past history and performance) tends to be more persuasive than >one
supported by nothing other than the predictor's word.
I agree, I just dont believe that this is the same situation as Chicago. My
prediction is that Jordan's jerseys still sell relatively well to how they are
now, but that their attendance goes down by mid season. This as the result of
no Jordan and a poor record. That's just my opinion.
>> I'd go 2 years, but not 5. Eventually they are bound to win more
>> games than this season, they didnt win that many games this season for
>> me to think that they couldnt be better than that in 4-5 years. I'm
>> not one to say that past history would indicate future performance.
>i think even two years might not be a very safe bet, the east is in so much
flux who knows what will happen.
I dunno, the team needs some serious pieces. Unless they find a nice free
agent and have a good draft, I cant see them being better in 2 years. But
anything could happen, I just don't think it will right away. Unless they hit
that 2% chance and land Lebron. Think that the NBA has the fix in if the Wiz
hit the jackpot? =)
>just because you can't prove something right or wrong doesn't mean it
doesn't merit vigorous debate. there's no proving whether or not God
>exists, i don't see the opposing sides saying "i'm sick of this debate, it's
>unwinnable."
I try to stay out of those god debates for those reasons. Someone inevitably
tries to prove that.
>> >there is a proving you wrong with regard to the fact that you insist
> that stats devoid of context have relevant meaning and that financial
>> > issues are not >inextricably interwoven with game issues in the NBA.
>> because you're incapable of seperating a part from the whole.
>like i said, usually you get a better understanding of a situation by
looking the whole, not just an isolated part.
I agree with that, but in this instance, I knew exactly how I meant it. Maybe
the problem is that no one else knew how I meant it, and that's my error.
>> I did say in my opinion. I dont think its that much of a stretch to
>> say that they would have had a higher draft pick had Jordan not played
>> though.
>yes, but that's far from "obvious." obvious indicates certainty, the only
thing certain is a higher probablility of that event having occurred.
duly noted. change "obvious" to "higher probablity" and we agree on it?
>> the Lakers have 1 thing the Wiz do not though, a core set of players,
>> even if that is only 2 players.
>that and a pretty good chance at winning a championship this year.
I'm a little more pessimistic than in previous years, but we'll see what
happens. I hope they turn it on like in previous years and if there is any
team that can do it, its them. I'd like to see them move to the 6 seed and end
up with Dallas. IMO, Dallas is an easier mark then San Antonio or Sacramento,
but if/when they take out one of those 3 in the first round, its all over for
the rest of the league.
>> they wont have the draft pick they would have had he not
>> played. I am assuming they would have been worse than they are this
>> year had Jordan not played.
>that's probably true, but again that's assuming there's no value in having won
the 35-40 games they won this season while battling for a >playoff spot.
well, where is the value in that really? If Stackhouse leaves and Jordan is
gone, they may have trouble landing free agents. I see the value in the
players there learning how to win, but if most of them are gone through
rebuilding, that is lost. They need to determine a core of players, if any,
that they will build around and build from there.
>> I'm not blaming him. It is just going to hurt the team in the future.
>but so does any team that wins and yet doesn't achieve its short-term goal
>(whether that's winning a title, or making the second round, or just making
>the playoffs, etc)
you have to define short term here. The problem that I had with the whole
thing is that there was only a short term, and no long term view. Now, the
short term Jordan era is over and there's nothing left except a few potential
players that may or may not pan out.
>> > >How they drafted from there could have changed the entire team.
>> > yep, they couldve taken mike dunleavy. NBA finals, here we come.
>> and I will counter by asking you if they would have been in any worse
>> situation had they taken Dunleavy?
>he sure hasn't been too great shakes, so sure, why not?
the Wizards 1st round pick last year, Jared Jeffries, picked 11th blew out his
knee after 20 games and is out for the year. Dunleavy has also played better
of late. They wouldnt have been any worse for the fact that Dunleavy could
have played at least.
>>Draft picks fail, I understand that. But I'd rather pick higher if I can.
>>Even if it means a [b]igger bust if they dont work out.
>i'm going to overlook that unfortunate typo there... ;-)
oh man, that was an awful typo. Definitely NOT intended, but I'm sure you
understand that.
>changing the subject--that was a nice win over dallas tonight, wasn't it?
I liked it because the rest of the team came through. Scored over 45 points I
believe it was. Unfortunately, I fell asleep at the beginning of the 4th
quarter. Damn me for living on the East Coast and the games ending at 1am.
>perfect example of why even though shaq doesn't deserve MVP this year, he's
probably the most valuable player to have on your team when >it really comes
down to it. unbelieveably efficient offense, great defense, acquiring tons of
fouls on all of their frontcourt players, >rebounding like crazy, just
basically becoming a one-man percentage-buster.
he looked good last night. He's the MDP.