Isiah Thomas vs. John Stockton
Gintautas Bronius Jazbutis
HEY! WHAT DOES THE NET THINK? IS THOMAS
OR STOCKTON THE BETTER POINT GUARD?
:-)
Jaz
--
-------------------------------------------| Jaz
Taking the path of least resistance makes | Georgia Tech
men, like rivers, crooked. | gt1...@prism.gatech.edu
Unknown
Coming from Michigan, I may be prejudiced, but Isiah is a whole lot
better (not now, obviously, but in his prime). Sure, Stockton's an
excellent player (averaging 1,000 assists for several seasons is nothing to
sneeze at). Yet, Isiah has two rings, and Stockton zip. I don't see
Stockton having to play through pain like Isiah has (who can forget the 3rd
Quarter of Game Six of '88 Finals? Or coming back from wrist surgery in
'91?). Neither do I see Stockton having dominating performances (16 pts.
in 94 seconds against NY in '84 playoffs). Besides, Isiah MADE the
Pistons. Example: Mark Aguirre came to the Pistons (or, rather,
"pissed-ons", cuz that's what everyone's doing to them now), with a rep.
for scoring a lot of points, but also being a huge whiner. Isiah sat him
down, and reasonably controlled Mopey Mac for two-three years. Also, Isiah
had 40 & 43 pts against Stockton, during the downside of his career.
I'll say this, though: Of all the point guards, Stockton is either #1 or
2.
Ed Costello
(Gintautas Bronius Jazbutis) wrote:
> HEY! WHAT DOES THE NET THINK? IS THOMAS
> OR STOCKTON THE BETTER POINT GUARD?
>
>
> :-)
>
> Jaz
Jaz, stop this taunt. Stop it now. Stop it quick. Stop it hard.
It will grow and mutate. Soon it will be unrecongizable.
It will become schitzophrenic, causing it's readers to lose themselves in
its grasp of the intangibles. It will suck every drop of logic from those
who choose to participate. It will cause intense heat, hotter than the
fires of hell itself.
Please. Stop the insanity..?
--
Gintautas Bronius Jazbutis
>bha...@harris.com (Betty Hall) writes:
>
>>>HEY! WHAT DOES THE NET THINK? IS THOMAS
>>>OR STOCKTON THE BETTER POINT GUARD?
>>>
>
>>>:-)
>
>
>You could really make a case for either one...BUT I think Thomas is the better
>of the two. His leadership lead his team to two championship. Then again
>we get into the same damn argument again...but the relationship between
>rings and being a better player......
I guess this fished out some newbies.
Heh heh.
Daniel Kirkland
>>Winning a championship is much (yes, even very much) more about the team
>>than the individuals. And like it or NOT, individual stats are by far
>>a much better way to look at individual players.
>Geez, are you naive or something? you mean individual stats in a team
>game is not much more about the team than indviduals? We are talking
>about assist stats. We are talking about the how to run an offense of
>5 players, not one-on-one basketball.
Yes, individual stats in a team game ARE more about the individual than
the team. No other point guard in the whole world would get as many
assists as Stockton if they replaced him on the Jazz team. Why? Because
they do not have the same individual abilities as Stockton does! The same
can be said for Stockton's steals or Karl Malone's points!
You mean Jordan's great stats had more to do with his team than his
own abilities? NOT!
You mean Magic's great stats had more to do with his team than his
own abilities? NOT!
You mean Bird's great stats had more to do with his team than his
own abilities? NOT!
You mean Wilt's great stats had more to do with his team than his
own abilities? NOT!
>The only way you can compare pure individual abilities is to have Isiah
>playing Stock one-on-one on the court. I'll see how many assists Stockton
>can accumulate.
But, you seem to be forgetting, basketball is a TEAM game!
One-on-one does not reflect a persons abilities in a team effort.
Most would agree that Larry Bird was one of the all time great basketball
players. Yet there are a great many players who would have been able to
beat Bird on a one-on-one game!
Again! Individual stats are still the best way to at individual players.
Why? Because basketball is a TEAM game! You cannot fairly evaluate how
a player will do in a TEAM game from a one-on-one situation!
This is why fantasy basketball rates player from their stats.
In fact, most rating systems use a players individual stats to rate
the individual players.
This is also why there are more kinds of stats being kept on the players
today than ever before. Because with more kinds of stats, the better
the rating system will be when rating the individual player!
I hope I have made my point. If you still do not understand, then I
hope you are not planning to make a living from your expertise in this
area.
Dan Kirkland (kirk...@ee.utah.edu)
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
Daniel Kirkland <kirk...@cadehp3.eng.utah.edu> wrote:
>What's this got to do with the individuals?
>Winning a championship is much (yes, even very much) more about the team
>than the individuals. And like it or NOT, individual stats are by far
>a much better way to look at individual players.
Geez, are you naive or something? you mean individual stats in a team
game is not much more about the team than indviduals? We are talking
about assist stats. We are talking about the how to run an offense of
5 players, not one-on-one basketball.
The only way you can compare pure individual abilities is to have Isiah
playing Stock one-on-one on the court. I'll see how many assists Stockton
can accumulate.
>And it is easily the best way in which we have to look at two very
>different players!
Two very different players in the same system, probably. I would say
that Stockton is a better player than Hansen. Two players of similar
importance in different systems? hardly the best way.
It's just like saying that Marino is better than Montana because of all
those passing yards he racks up....
--
Edward Lor
l...@mtdcc.ATT.COM
AT&T Bell Labs
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
Daniel Kirkland <kirk...@cadehp4.eng.utah.edu> wrote:
>Yes, individual stats in a team game ARE more about the individual than
>the team. No other point guard in the whole world would get as many
>assists as Stockton if they replaced him on the Jazz team.
one, would at least get as mancy assists.
>Why? Because they do not have the same individual abilities as Stockton
>does!
What individual abilities? Holding the ball most of the time?
>You mean Jordan's great stats had more to do with his team than his
>own abilities? NOT!
Yep. Put him in the Celtic or Laker system. I don't think he'll average
30 ppg. Not that he would be an inferior player, but Bird/McHale/Kareem/
Worthy would have cut into his quota of shots.
>You mean Magic's great stats had more to do with his team than his
>own abilities? NOT!
Yep, put him in a stagnant offense, like the one Paul Westhead installed in
early 1982. Afterall, the knock on Magic vs Michael years (pre-1991) was that
Magic had great teammates. Without Kareem and Worthy's low post game, without
the fast break, I doubt that he would have that many assists....
>You mean Bird's great stats had more to do with his team than his
>own abilities? NOT!
I don't even think Bird has great stats. He is a well-rounded player
with top 10 stats in many categories. But how often does he lead the
league in any major categories? You care to tell me the times he led
the league in points, assist, rebounds, steals, block shots? How often
did he have record breaking stats for a season?
>You mean Wilt's great stats had more to do with his team than his
>own abilities? NOT!
Well, look at his 50ppg season. Who else were there to score? He took
3159 shots, most in league history. What if he had a couple scorers
alongside him (e.g. Greer, Cunningham, Walker)? In Philly's best season
in franchise history (68-13, 2nd best in league history), he took almost
1800 fewer shots, averaged 24.3 ppg. Was he only half the player he was
in 1962? Dream on!
>But, you seem to be forgetting, basketball is a TEAM game!
>One-on-one does not reflect a persons abilities in a team effort.
Well, then how do individual stats reflect a person's abilities in a
team effort?
>Again! Individual stats are still the best way to at individual players.
Is that a fact or just a biased opinion?
>Why? Because basketball is a TEAM game! You cannot fairly evaluate how
>a player will do in a TEAM game from a one-on-one situation!
Then how can you fairly evaluate how a player will do in a TEAM game from
individual stats?
>This is why fantasy basketball rates player from their stats.
>In fact, most rating systems use a players individual stats to rate
>the individual players.
That's why fantasy basketball is nothing but a fantasy. How often do
fantasy basketball reflects reality?
>I hope I have made my point. If you still do not understand, then I
>hope you are not planning to make a living from your expertise in this
>area.
I don't think your point is anything new. Meek and I have been arguing for
weeks on the hypothetical situation of putting Stockton on the Celtics,
on his fantasy that Stockton would get the ring but still getting 15 apg...
I mean, you have been joining this topic several weeks late...
Daniel Kirkland
>weeks on the hypothetical situation of putting Stockton on the Celtics,
>on his fantasy that Stockton would get the ring but still getting 15 apg...
>
>I mean, you have been joining this topic several weeks late...
Yes, I have read many of your posts.
And it is pretty clear that you get only what you want out of what you
read. You ignore one point and then twist the statment to suit yourself,
many time completly changing the original subject. There is no way to
ever get a point across to you as you will never even try to veiw a
statment as it was intended.
So...
Rather than joining one of your useless and neverending discussions...
Dan
Dave Meeks
>In article <36hlhf$l...@u.cc.utah.edu>,
>Daniel Kirkland <kirk...@cadehp4.eng.utah.edu> wrote:
>>Yes, individual stats in a team game ARE more about the individual than
>>the team. No other point guard in the whole world would get as many
>>assists as Stockton if they replaced him on the Jazz team.
>How do you know? In Utah's one-man-playmaking offense, I bet Magic, for
>one, would at least get as mancy assists.
Is the fact, or just biased individual opinion?
As has been pointed out on many occasions, Utah does not have any more of
a 'one-man-playmaking offense' then Detroit does, or a whole host of other
teams.
>
>>Why? Because they do not have the same individual abilities as Stockton
>>does!
>What individual abilities? Holding the ball most of the time?
So, you are trying to claim that all you would have to do is hold the ball
all the time to be able to put up consistent 1000 assist/season years? Geesh,
why haven't more coaches thought of this?? And what about turnovers? Why
is it that you claim he holds/controls the ball so much longer than these
other guys yet his Turnover rates are lower.
>>You mean Bird's great stats had more to do with his team than his
>>own abilities? NOT!
>I don't even think Bird has great stats. He is a well-rounded player
>with top 10 stats in many categories. But how often does he lead the
>league in any major categories? You care to tell me the times he led
>the league in points, assist, rebounds, steals, block shots? How often
>did he have record breaking stats for a season?
You mean you have to lead major categories to have great stats?? Heck...
let's throw one more into the Isiah vs. Stockton debate. Stockton had
great stats, Isiah did not. Stockton has led the league in one of the major
stats about 9 or 10 times. Isiah managed to do it once.
Bird had great stats because of the overall line. Finishing your career as
a 24.3ppg scorer is great stats. He led the league in FT% 4 different
years. He finished his career 11th alltime in total points, 8th Alltime
in steals, 10th in FGM, 4th in 3ptAttempted, 4th in 3ptMade. He finished
as the ONLY player to end his career with career averages of at least
20ppg, at least 10rpg, and at least 6apg. Throw in the fact he nearly
averaged 2spg, and the fact that he shot 50% from the floor and 89% from
the strip, as well as 38% from 3pt land... those are great stats...
>
>>You mean Wilt's great stats had more to do with his team than his
>>own abilities? NOT!
>Well, look at his 50ppg season. Who else were there to score? He took
>3159 shots, most in league history. What if he had a couple scorers
>alongside him (e.g. Greer, Cunningham, Walker)? In Philly's best season
>in franchise history (68-13, 2nd best in league history), he took almost
>1800 fewer shots, averaged 24.3 ppg. Was he only half the player he was
>in 1962? Dream on!
I guess you Paul Arizin couldn't score? He only averaged 21.9ppg during
Wilt's 50.4ppg season. He finished his career as a 22.8ppg scorer, and led
the league in scoring twice. I guess he couldn't score, right?? And
Tom Meschery, Al Attles, and Tom Gola could all score. Hell, even Guy
Rodgers could score.
Wilt scored so much because he decided to shoot so much. And, who could
argue with him, he had the leagues 2nd highest FG%. It wasn't because his
teammates couldn't score.
>
>>But, you seem to be forgetting, basketball is a TEAM game!
>>One-on-one does not reflect a persons abilities in a team effort.
>Well, then how do individual stats reflect a person's abilities in a
>team effort?
How do team accomplishments apply in comparisons between individuals??
>>Why? Because basketball is a TEAM game! You cannot fairly evaluate how
>>a player will do in a TEAM game from a one-on-one situation!
>Then how can you fairly evaluate how a player will do in a TEAM game from
>individual stats?
Then how can you fairly evaluate two individuals based on the accomplishments
of an entire team?
>>I hope I have made my point. If you still do not understand, then I
>>hope you are not planning to make a living from your expertise in this
>>area.
>I don't think your point is anything new. Meek and I have been arguing for
>weeks on the hypothetical situation of putting Stockton on the Celtics,
>on his fantasy that Stockton would get the ring but still getting 15 apg...
'my fantasy'?
What makes 'your fantasy' that he would not get his stats in the same situation
any better??
You seem to like to claim everyone else's 'opinion' is nothing but fantasy
while your opinion is somehow the gospel? Again, when it all comes down
to 'evidence', at least we have numbers to fall back on. You continually
deal purely in fantasy opinion, and when you remove that, you have nothing.
It's like saying you thought Jurassic Park was a better movie than something
like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and that because of that, Sam
Neil is obviously the better actor when compared to Jack Nicholson. After
all, wasn't he the lead actor in this great movie??
--
David T. Meeks || "There's a lot of Big Talkers
Software Engineer || But no one's really speaking up
VMark Software, Inc. || There's too many Star Trekkers
da...@vmark.com || That are boldly going to the same old stars..."
Eric
>Well, I'm certainly not Dave, but the ability to hit the college 3
>doesn't necessarily mean that Hill can hit the pro 3. I watched some
>of both players and the Big Dog had no qualms about shooting from a longer
>distance, while I rarely (never?) saw Hill shoot from NBA-3 distance.
True true. I offer as an aside the *now confirmed* moving of the NBA 3-pt
line to a uniform 22-foot radius. That should shore up the difference
between the college and pro 3. Ummm...what's the college distance? :)
BTW there will be 3 foul shots instead of 2 for players fouled
while attempting a 3-pt shot.
Also Stern rejected the idea of a lockout. The season will start on time
(we hope).
>Ed O.
--eric
Yn3 Dykehouse
can't compare the two. Isiah could do it all, make the big play, shut down
somebody on defense, play hurt (41 points on a sprained ankle against the
Lakers), have enough gull to punch Bill Cartwright in the face (remember Bulls
fans?), and be a team leader. Stockton is a reflection of Karl Malone. He is
an average shooter, a great passer (not as good as Magic), and plays average
defense. I give the man his props, he puts up numbers, but there is no way in
hell he could take over a game like Thomas could. If Karl Malone was to leave
the Jazz, do you think John Stockton would be an all star? Know that Magic
and Isiah are gone I think you have to look at Mark Price and Gary Payton
along with John Stockton. Magic is the greatest ever. That is a fact!!!!
GO LAKERS -Joe-
INET: n1...@pnet16.navy.mil
Eric
>Bird had great stats because of the overall line. Finishing your career as
>the strip, as well as 38% from 3pt land... those are great stats...
In another thread u were mentioning Grant Hill's FG% and implied
his lack of a 3-pt shot vs Glenn Robinson's ability to shoot the 3...
In his senior year, Grant shot 39-100 from 3-pt land. that's 39%.
I assume he was trying to prove something to the various basketball
guides published after his junior year that declared he had no 3-pt shot.
True, he basically *didn't* have a 3-pt shot then, but he clearly does now.
Dave, have u bought the new guides yet? :)
>David T. Meeks || "There's a lot of Big Talkers
Edward Ouellette
Eric <EIV...@cms.cc.wayne.edu> wrote:
>
>This reminds me....
>In another thread u were mentioning Grant Hill's FG% and implied
>his lack of a 3-pt shot vs Glenn Robinson's ability to shoot the 3...
>In his senior year, Grant shot 39-100 from 3-pt land. that's 39%.
>I assume he was trying to prove something to the various basketball
>guides published after his junior year that declared he had no 3-pt shot.
>True, he basically *didn't* have a 3-pt shot then, but he clearly does now.
Well, I'm certainly not Dave, but the ability to hit the college 3
doesn't necessarily mean that Hill can hit the pro 3. I watched some
of both players and the Big Dog had no qualms about shooting from a longer
distance, while I rarely (never?) saw Hill shoot from NBA-3 distance.
Ed O.
Frank Yeh Jr.
in my $.02.
IMHO, Stockton in his prime was a better point guard than Thomas in his.
however, I also believe that Thomas is/was a better basketball player than
Stockton.
If you consider the definition of a pure point guard a player who is a floor
leader, assist man, competent scorer and controller of the tempo of games, it's
hard to beat Stockton.
Thomas was not a pure point guard, but he was a phenomenal basketball player
who could flat out take over games... something that only the true greats can
do.
Consider Magic... hardly fits the point guard stereotype, but I'd have taken
him over any other point in the league because he just won.
I watched Thomas light up the Lakers for 24 points in the 3rd quarter of a
finals game part of which he played with a sprained ankle. One of the most
amazing displays of basketball ability I've ever seen.
I've also watched Stockton burn the Lakers with his leadership and passing
and just when you think you can sag off him on D he steps up and buries the trey.
Bottom line is if I had a draft pick and could pick either one in his prime
knowing what I do now, I'd have to take Thomas.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Frank Yeh, Jr. fy...@ca.mdis.com
jaz...@news.delphi.com
>Born and raised in Detroit (not a big Pistons fan, believe it or not), you
>can't compare the two. Isiah could do it all, make the big play, shut down
>somebody on defense, play hurt (41 points on a sprained ankle against the
>Lakers), have enough gull to punch Bill Cartwright in the face (remember Bulls
>fans?),
Enough gull? That was *not* one of the smarter things Isiah
ever did in his career. For the sake of "gull", he gets injured
and the Pistons are without him for an extended period of time.
Isiah has plenty of good moments and great qualities, but don't
include a punch which costs his team (and just what really did
it accomplish anyways?) as one of them...
Jazzy J
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
Dave Meeks <da...@vmark.com> wrote:
>>How do you know? In Utah's one-man-playmaking offense, I bet Magic, for
>>one, would at least get as mancy assists.
>
>Is the fact, or just biased individual opinion?
"No other point guard in the whole world would get as many
assists as Stockton if they replaced him on the Jazz team."
a fact or just biased individual opinion?
>As has been pointed out on many occasions, Utah does not have any more of
>a 'one-man-playmaking offense' then Detroit does, or a whole host of other
>teams.
On which occasions? you care to show us? At least your BS theory that G.S./
Phoenix being one man playmaking offense doesn't hold water, as I
showed in <CwwH2...@nntpa.cb.att.com>, and where's your response?
>So, you are trying to claim that all you would have to do is hold the ball
>all the time to be able to put up consistent 1000 assist/season years? Geesh,
>why haven't more coaches thought of this??
Because more coaches like the idea of a more versatile offense, having
more entry passers. Like it or not, such an offensive philosophy does
not result in fewer team assists. Do you think coaches care more about
individual stats or team stats?
>>I don't even think Bird has great stats. He is a well-rounded player
>>with top 10 stats in many categories. But how often does he lead the
>>league in any major categories? You care to tell me the times he led
>>the league in points, assist, rebounds, steals, block shots? How often
>>did he have record breaking stats for a season?
>You mean you have to lead major categories to have great stats??
If not, then Isiah certainly has great stats: 4th all-time in assist,
4th all-time in steals, 28th all-time in scoring. Top 10 in assists for
10 straight years. Then what are you arguing against? Besides, I asked
you to define 'outstanding stats' in <Cvzxr...@nntpa.cb.att.com> on
9/12/94, you have been wimping out ...
I mean, if you aren't bragging Stockton's all-time leading stats in
assists and steals, as well as league leading stats in the past 7 seasons,
what's your case?
>Heck... >let's throw one more into the Isiah vs. Stockton debate. Stockton had
>great stats, Isiah did not.
Then Mchale and Dr. J didn't either, yet you have no problem putting them as
Super-echelon.
>Stockton has led the league in one of the major
>stats about 9 or 10 times. Isiah managed to do it once.
While Dr. J and McHale managed to do it none in the NBA. And if major stats
means scoring, rebound, assist, blocks, steals, neither did Bird.
See, when it comes to definition of 'great stats', I know why you have
to wimp out, because you can't tell what it is. See,
career season outstanding
stats stats stats?
leading top-10 leading top-10
Dr.J 0 2 0 7 yes
McHale 0 0 2 13 yes
Isiah 0 2 1 17 no
See, you think you can get away with your BS double standards?
>Bird had great stats because of the overall line. Finishing your career as
>a 24.3ppg scorer is great stats.
which is only 11th all-time. In that case, I guess finishing your career
as the 4th most assists and 4th most steals all-time certainly qualifies
as great stats, right?
>He finished his career 11th alltime in total points, 8th Alltime
>in steals, 10th in FGM, 4th in 3ptAttempted, 4th in 3ptMade. He finished
>as the ONLY player to end his career with career averages of at least
>20ppg, at least 10rpg, and at least 6apg. Throw in the fact he nearly
>averaged 2spg, and the fact that he shot 50% from the floor and 89% from
>the strip, as well as 38% from 3pt land... those are great stats...
Well, only that? where are the criteria you've been bragging for Stockton?
where's the all-time leading stats? where's the record-breaking season
stats? where's the 7 consecutive times leading the league in any category?
Now you are telling me that 'outstanding stats' does not merely mean what
you have been preaching for Stockton? Wow, then there's a whole new ballgame.
Let's work on your super-echelon (who also have outstanding stats)
Dr. J and McHale first ...
>>Well, look at his 50ppg season. Who else were there to score? He took
>>3159 shots, most in league history. What if he had a couple scorers
>>alongside him (e.g. Greer, Cunningham, Walker)? In Philly's best season
>>in franchise history (68-13, 2nd best in league history), he took almost
>>1800 fewer shots, averaged 24.3 ppg. Was he only half the player he was
>>in 1962? Dream on!
>I guess you Paul Arizin couldn't score? He only averaged 21.9ppg during
>Wilt's 50.4ppg season.
Yeah? who else are there? Where were the third, fourth and fifth offensive
options that took 1000+ shots (as the 1967 76ers did)?
>He finished his career as a 22.8ppg scorer, and led
>the league in scoring twice. I guess he couldn't score, right?? And
>Tom Meschery, Al Attles, and Tom Gola could all score. Hell, even Guy
>Rodgers could score.
Whether they could all score is another matter, how much could they score
when Attles/gola/Rodgers were each allocated < 800 shots?
>Wilt scored so much because he decided to shoot so much. And, who could
>argue with him, he had the leagues 2nd highest FG%.
The Wilt of 1967, who shot .683 in 1800+ fewer times.
>It wasn't because his teammates couldn't score.
Hey, how much would you score when you take < 10 shots/game?
>>Well, then how do individual stats reflect a person's abilities in a
>>team effort?
>How do team accomplishments apply in comparisons between individuals??
No more than individual stats, which is a reflection of the system
and your environment, being applied in comparisions between individuals.
>Then how can you fairly evaluate two individuals based on the accomplishments
>of an entire team?
Then how can you fairly evaluate how a player will do in a TEAM game from
individual stats?
>What makes 'your fantasy' that he would not get his stats in the same situation
>any better??
Oh, so it's my fantasy? So this argument is boiled down to your fantasy
vs my fantasy. So which fantasy has more evidence to support it?
Check out <CwwH2...@nntpa.cb.att.com>, posted on 9/29/94. You
have been wimping out on that thread. I am still waiting for your reply
on the 15 apg fantasy ...
>You seem to like to claim everyone else's 'opinion' is nothing but fantasy
>while your opinion is somehow the gospel?
Really? I don't even see statements like
"No other point guard in the whole world would get as many
assists as Stockton if they replaced him on the Jazz team."
"Put Stockton on this team, and DJ backs him up and
splits time at the SG spot with Danny Ainge. Stockton, having
Bird, McHale, Parish, and DJ/Ainge to pass to averages about
15apg..."
being disclaimed as opinions. And you accused me of my opinion being gospel?
>Again, when it all comes down
>to 'evidence', at least we have numbers to fall back on.
Just this statement is nothing but a fantasy. Two issues:
1) you speculate some numbers out of your ... != you have numbers to
fall back on. You speculation can easily be refuted by:
-- none of Bird's PG ever averaged 15 apg and
-- no PG who ever average 15 apg has a SF teammate averaging 6 apg and
a SG teammate averaging 4 apg. I can even cut you some slack: this
scenario doesn't even happen to any PG who averaged merely 10 apg.
2) You can't even draw a line on what qualifies as 'numbers' and what
not? You have been bragging outstanding stats, as in the case of
Stockton. Yet then did Bird have outstanding stats? did McHale?
the Doctor? they did? now you have nerve to exclude Isiah
from outstanding stats...
>You continually deal purely in fantasy opinion,
It's as if your 15 apg is a fact, or even an opinion with any basis...
>and when you remove that, you have nothing.
Are you talking about fantasy opinion like Stockton averaging 15 apg
in the Celtic system...
MAD, MAD, MAD SCIENTIST
Joe,
I disagree with you. John Stockton is the best point guard to
play the game. No other player in the game has the court sense that
Stockton has. With the size of his hands, their is not a pass he can't
throw. Stockton has played hurt many times but you don't hear about it
because he doesnt let the media or fans know. Stockton is actually
responsible for making Malone the player he is not the other way around.
His shooting abilities are much better than Thomas'. I once saw Stockton
hit 36 points in college against Jay Humphries. It would not surprise
me to see Stockton become the next head coach at Utah.
Jay
Terrance A Wimberly
Preach on Dave!!!
Gambit
Tom
: Wow ! This thread has generated so much hostility that I just had to put
: in my $.02.
: IMHO, Stockton in his prime was a better point guard than Thomas in his.
: however, I also believe that Thomas is/was a better basketball player than
: Stockton.
: If you consider the definition of a pure point guard a player who is a floor
: leader, assist man, competent scorer and controller of the tempo of games, it's
: hard to beat Stockton.
: Thomas was not a pure point guard, but he was a phenomenal basketball player
This appears to be the arguement on the net. People recognize that Stockton
is a better point guard than Thomas. But some people say that Thomas is a
better one-on-one player than Stockton.
Of the course nobody will be able to convince anybody that doesn't want
to be convinced of that last one. We can only talk about the players as
a function of their team.
- Tom Burke
--
-- ^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^
"I have seen that those who are incompetent, may have better staying power than those
who are competent, because they better present the company image." - Tom Burke
Yn3 Dykehouse
First of all, Thomas is a true point guard. He was the standard that point
gaurds were set along with Magic back in the 80's. Second of all Stockston
can not take over a game like I. Thomas. My personal opinion is John
Stockton is a shadow of Karl Malone. Without Karl there is no John. And if
I. Thomas played Stockton one on one Thomas would smoke him. Why? Because IT
would pull up from 30 fading away and hit the jump shot. Stockton does'nt
have an outside shot like that. Also, IT jumps higher. I remember in the 88
conference finals when IT went baseline and dunked over Paxson. That's
Stockton's sportscenter fantasy. So, my point is, keep Stockton in with the
B. J. Armstrong's, Mark Price's, Gary Payton's, and John Stark's of the league
and put IT with the Magic's, Jordan's, and Bird's.
Go Lakers!!! Very Respectfully -Joe-
INET: n1...@pnet16.navy.mil
Yn3 Dykehouse
meerly trying to point out that IT had a heart as big as the world. He is a
better player than Stockton. Do you agree?
INET: n1...@pnet16.navy.mil
Frank Yeh Jr.
: I agree with almost everything you said Frank. Some corrections though.
: gaurds were set along with Magic back in the 80's.
My point was not that Zeke was not a point guard... he was a great one. I was
trying to say that he does more than just what you expect out of a point guard.
He kind of transcended the position. Stockton is the prototypical point in my
book and his point guard skills (especially passing) are probably better than
Isaiah's.
: Second of all Stockston
: can not take over a game like I. Thomas.
That was my point exactly. John was probably the better setup man but Isaiah
could take over the game in so many ways.
: My personal opinion is John
: Stockton is a shadow of Karl Malone. Without Karl there is no John. And if
: I. Thomas played Stockton one on one Thomas would smoke him. Why? Because IT
: would pull up from 30 fading away and hit the jump shot. Stockton does'nt
: have an outside shot like that. Also, IT jumps higher. I remember in the 88
: conference finals when IT went baseline and dunked over Paxson. That's
: Stockton's sportscenter fantasy.
Ha! The famous who made whom controversy... the great scorer or the great
passer. I think they both made each other better, but they both would have been
great players whoever they played with.
: So, my point is, keep Stockton in with the
: B. J. Armstrong's, Mark Price's, Gary Payton's, and John Stark's of the league
: and put IT with the Magic's, Jordan's, and Bird's.
: Go Lakers!!! Very Respectfully -Joe-
:
Gimme a break! Putting Stockton in with BJ, Price, Payton and Starks is a joke.
Stockton is a hall of famer and those other guys are barely all-stars, with Price
being the best of the bunch.
Magic, Bird and Jordan are all time greats... a step above hall of famer.
IT is a cinch for the hall of fame but not an all time great in my book.
Dave Meeks
>Born and raised in Detroit (not a big Pistons fan, believe it or not), you
>can't compare the two. Isiah could do it all, make the big play, shut down
>somebody on defense, play hurt (41 points on a sprained ankle against the
>Lakers), have enough gull to punch Bill Cartwright in the face (remember Bulls
>fans?), and be a team leader. Stockton is a reflection of Karl Malone. He is
>an average shooter, a great passer (not as good as Magic), and plays average
>defense. I give the man his props, he puts up numbers, but there is no way in
>hell he could take over a game like Thomas could. If Karl Malone was to leave
When you make comments like these, you just eliminate any respectability you
might of had. Everyone has the right to there opinion, but if you really
claim 'Isiah could ... shut down somebody on defense...' while Stockton
'... plays average defense...', you obviously have no clue. The NBA coaches
(know who they are) have given thoughts to this manner for many years. Isiah
has never made an 'AllDefensive' squad, a ranking given to those that are
considered the very best defensive players at their respective positions.
Stockton, on the other hand, has made 3 AllDefensive squads.
And, anybody who can mention 'have enough gull to punch Bill Cartwright in
the face' and 'be a team leader' in the same sentence is pretty funny. Let's
not forget he punched his teammate Bill Laimbeer in the head in practice,
causing Isiah to injury himself and miss many games. Yep, that's the kind
of example you want your veterans teaching your young guys...
--
David T. Meeks || "There's a lot of Big Talkers
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
Daniel Kirkland <kirk...@cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>Here is another great example of you trying to missapply the given
>information (just one of many in this post). While the overall topic is
>Stockton and Thomas, the topic in this segment is whether or not individual
>stats reflect an individuals abilities or the teams AND THAT IS ALL!!!!!!!!!
Really? We have been arguing Isiah vs Stockton since July, and a variety
of sub-topics since then. But when did we side-track to individual stats
reflect on individual abilities?
Besides, what does individual abilities have to do with indivdual greatness?
I am sure that a healthy Ralph Sampson was one of the best in individual
abilities. Would you say that he was an NBA legend?
>You have some strange notion that a persons stats reflect the quality
>of the teams play and not the individuals play.
Wait. I don't believe individual stats reflect 100% team play and 0%
individual play, but I don't believe your notion that it's the
best way to compare individual players (on different teams) either...
>If this were true then
>there would NOT be any players on a given team who's stats would be that
>much better than any other player on that same team.
What if that's not true? I made a statement in <Cwxz5...@nntpa.cb.att.com>:
>And it is easily the best way in which we have to look at two very
>different players!
Two very different players in the same system, probably. I would say
that Stockton is a better player than Hansen. Two players of similar
importance in different systems? hardly the best way.
Now how would you apply a measure to compare two teammates in the
Stockton vs Isiah war?
>Yet, when you look
>at ANY team you will find that the better players on a particular team
>will have better stats than the lesser players on the same team!
That's what I said. How is it applicable to our 3-month argument
on comparing a Piston and a Jazz?
>Take the Jazz for example. Everyone knows that Malone and Stockton are
>the better players on the team. And their stats back this up completely!
Geez, you have nothing to back up your stats to compare players on different
teams, now you have to resort to a measure of comparison of two teammates?
>I'll say it again!
>INDIVIDUAL STATS IN A TEAM GAME ARE THE BEST WAY TO COMPARE INDIVIDUAL
>PLAYERS!
>No, it is not perfect. Far from it in fact. But is is the best we have
>to go on.
That may be the best way in your feeble mind. Fortunately what's in your
feeble mind is not the truth...
>It's pretty hard to miss the point or the reasoning here, but I am sure
>that you will find a way!
I am sure that you will find a way to consistency in your argument....
Daniel Kirkland
|> Wait. I don't believe individual stats reflect 100% team play and 0%
|> individual play, but I don't believe your notion that it's the
|> best way to compare individual players (on different teams) either...
And your better way is???
|> >Take the Jazz for example. Everyone knows that Malone and Stockton are
|> >the better players on the team. And their stats back this up completely!
|> Geez, you have nothing to back up your stats to compare players on different
|> teams, now you have to resort to a measure of comparison of two teammates?
I have nothing? Take a look at the better players in the NBA (the top ten
in the MVP voting for example) and you will find that they are also at the
top in OVERALL stats.
|> >I'll say it again!
|> >INDIVIDUAL STATS IN A TEAM GAME ARE THE BEST WAY TO COMPARE INDIVIDUAL
|> >PLAYERS!
|> >No, it is not perfect. Far from it in fact. But is is the best we have
|> >to go on.
|> That may be the best way in your feeble mind. Fortunately what's in your
|> feeble mind is not the truth...
And of course you still don't mention of a better way.
I do remember you saying that the two players should play a one-on-one
game. But this would only show their one-on-on abilities, not which one
would be better in a team situation.
And who is better, Isiah Thomas or John Stockton?
Seeing that Thomas is not in the NBA anymore, it doesn't really matter.
DanK
Daniel Kirkland
>>a 24.3ppg scorer is great stats.
>which is only 11th all-time. In that case, I guess finishing your career
>as the 4th most assists and 4th most steals all-time certainly qualifies
>as great stats, right?
>
>>He finished his career 11th alltime in total points, 8th Alltime
>>in steals, 10th in FGM, 4th in 3ptAttempted, 4th in 3ptMade. He finished
>>as the ONLY player to end his career with career averages of at least
>>20ppg, at least 10rpg, and at least 6apg. Throw in the fact he nearly
>>averaged 2spg, and the fact that he shot 50% from the floor and 89% from
>>the strip, as well as 38% from 3pt land... those are great stats...
>Well, only that? where are the criteria you've been bragging for Stockton?
>where's the all-time leading stats? where's the record-breaking season
>stats? where's the 7 consecutive times leading the league in any category?
>
>Now you are telling me that 'outstanding stats' does not merely mean what
>you have been preaching for Stockton? Wow, then there's a whole new ballgame.
>Let's work on your super-echelon (who also have outstanding stats)
>Dr. J and McHale first ...
Here is another great example of you trying to missapply the given
information (just one of many in this post). While the overall topic is
Stockton and Thomas, the topic in this segment is whether or not individual
stats reflect an individuals abilities or the teams AND THAT IS ALL!!!!!!!!!
You have some strange notion that a persons stats reflect the quality
of the teams play and not the individuals play. If this were true then
there would NOT be any players on a given team who's stats would be that
much better than any other player on that same team. Yet, when you look
at ANY team you will find that the better players on a particular team
will have better stats than the lesser players on the same team!
Take the Jazz for example. Everyone knows that Malone and Stockton are
the better players on the team. And their stats back this up completely!
I'll say it again!
INDIVIDUAL STATS IN A TEAM GAME ARE THE BEST WAY TO COMPARE INDIVIDUAL
PLAYERS!
No, it is not perfect. Far from it in fact. But is is the best we have
to go on.
It's pretty hard to miss the point or the reasoning here, but I am sure
that you will find a way!
Dan Kirkland (kirk...@ee.utah.edu)
PS: If you were really reading what I have written, you should realize
that I have not really said anything about which is the better player
(Stockton or Thomas) in any of my posts!
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
individual abilities, performance in the clutch, etc...
>I have nothing? Take a look at the better players in the NBA (the top ten
>in the MVP voting for example) and you will find that they are also at the
>top in OVERALL stats.
Dumbo, overall stats are quantifiable, i.e., you can linearly order it.
If so, there shouldn't be any MVP voting at all. The IBM Award (the old
Schick Award) winner should be the most valuable player because he has the
best stats, if stats totally reflect player abilities. #1 in the formula
== #1 in MVP, #2 in the formula == #2 in MVP, and so on ...
The fact that no IBM award winner has ever been the MVP in the same
season should give you a clue.
>And of course you still don't mention of a better way.
>
>I do remember you saying that the two players should play a one-on-one
>game. But this would only show their one-on-on abilities, not which one
>would be better in a team situation.
Geez, when you butt into an argument 3 months late, at least get a clue
what has been said.
On 9/12, I mentioned the criteria for super-echelon: contribution to team
success, individual abilities, honors, performance under pressure, etc.
That's pretty much how I would compare players, a combination of these
criteria. I am not naive enough to believe that individual stats is
the best way, or the only way.
BTW, you mention individual stats as the best way to compare teammates,
but why is it the best way to compare players on different teams?
>And who is better, Isiah Thomas or John Stockton?
>Seeing that Thomas is not in the NBA anymore, it doesn't really matter.
Who has a better career?
awesome
If you were a coach going into a 7-game series with the Bulls w/Jordan, the
Celtics w/Bird, the Blazers of 3yrs ago, or the Lakers w/Magic, who would
you want to be your point guard Isiah near his prime or Stockton near his
prime? I'll take Zeke because he will have a greater impact on the outcome
of the game, and he can lead a series win against those teams.
That's why I think Zeke is better.
DC
Stephen Lil IV
Tom
: >It seems to me and many others that the opinions mentioned by Dan are shared
: >by a large number of people out there.
: 1) So? just on this net, a larger number of people feel that Isiah > Stockton.
Ah, this thread has been going on a long time. But I haven't seen too
many people on this net take the position that Isiah was a better point
guard than John.
: 2) what large number of people out there share the opinion that
: 'Stockton > Isiah' careerwise?
Count me as one.
- Tom Burke
--
-- ^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^
"I have seen that those who are incompetent, may have better staying power than
those who are competent, because they better present the company image." - Tom
-- ^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^
James Estalilla Go
Dave Meeks
>In article <37fol5$b...@magus.cs.utah.edu>,
>Daniel Kirkland <kirk...@cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>
>>You have some strange notion that a persons stats reflect the quality
>>of the teams play and not the individuals play.
>Wait. I don't believe individual stats reflect 100% team play and 0%
>individual play, but I don't believe your notion that it's the
>best way to compare individual players (on different teams) either...
Why don't you clear it up for us then Ed. What is it that you believe is
the best way to compare individual players?
It seems you claim that using individual stats to compare individual players
is an inferior or improper way of comparing two individuals. Why don't you
enlighten us on what Ed Lor believes to be the 'proper' way to compare two
individuals. Don't avoid the issue by not replying, or trying to mislead
the question by bringing up other issues. We all want to know. We are tired
of hearing all the time about how our way is wrong... we want to know for
a change what it is Ed Lor believes to be the correct way.
>>the better players on the team. And their stats back this up completely!
>Geez, you have nothing to back up your stats to compare players on different
>teams, now you have to resort to a measure of comparison of two teammates?
>
>>I'll say it again!
>>INDIVIDUAL STATS IN A TEAM GAME ARE THE BEST WAY TO COMPARE INDIVIDUAL
>>PLAYERS!
>>No, it is not perfect. Far from it in fact. But is is the best we have
>>to go on.
>That may be the best way in your feeble mind. Fortunately what's in your
>feeble mind is not the truth...
?? Based on YOUR feeble mind it isn't the truth. But then, who's to say
you know any better than anyone else. You are quick to condemn someone's
opinion, then spout your own opinion as if it is the rules of the land.
It seems to me and many others that the opinions mentioned by Dan are shared
by a large number of people out there. And, whether you think they are feeble
or not, or whether you feel it is the 'truth' or not is irrelevant, as your
opinion can be judged to be just as feeble and lacking in any truth.
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
Dave Meeks <da...@vmark.com> wrote:
>Why don't you clear it up for us then Ed. What is it that you believe is
>the best way to compare individual players?
before you asked this question...
>It seems you claim that using individual stats to compare individual players
>is an inferior or improper way of comparing two individuals. Why don't you
>enlighten us on what Ed Lor believes to be the 'proper' way to compare two
>individuals. Don't avoid the issue by not replying, or trying to mislead
>the question by bringing up other issues. We all want to know. We are tired
>of hearing all the time about how our way is wrong...
>we want to know for a change what it is Ed Lor believes to be the
>correct way.
Are you stupid or what? Just for argument's sake, pointing out your wrong
way doesn't mean that I have the obligation to provide a solution.
>?? Based on YOUR feeble mind it isn't the truth. But then, who's to say
>you know any better than anyone else. You are quick to condemn someone's
>opinion, then spout your own opinion as if it is the rules of the land.
Geez, Meek, I have been asking you for weeks, and you have been wimping
out for weeks. Tell me how
"No other point guard in the whole world would get as many
assists as Stockton if they replaced him on the Jazz team."
.... (A)
"Put Stockton on this team, and DJ backs him up and
splits time at the SG spot with Danny Ainge. Stockton, having
Bird, McHale, Parish, and DJ/Ainge to pass to averages about
15apg..." .... (B)
being disclaimed as opinions, or opinions with any basis. I have been waiting
for your justification of how a PG would average 15 apg when his SF averages
6 and his SG averages 4, in <Cx8EC...@nntpa.cb.att.com>, on 10/6/94.
You never justify it except your feeble 'if I have a fantasy with no proof,
then your disputing it is also only a fantasy' method.
And just by disputing your opinion, some BS with no ground to stand on,
means that my opinion is the rules of the land?
>It seems to me and many others that the opinions mentioned by Dan are shared
>by a large number of people out there.
1) So? just on this net, a larger number of people feel that Isiah > Stockton.
So what does your large number of people mean?
2) what large number of people out there share the opinion that
'Stockton > Isiah' careerwise?
>And, whether you think they are feeble
>or not, or whether you feel it is the 'truth' or not is irrelevant, as your
>opinion can be judged to be just as feeble and lacking in any truth.
Well, let's see. If my disputing your "opinion", by itself, is feeble and
lacking in any truth, does it mean you have facts to back up (A) or (B)?
You care to show them?
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
Bobby Davis <r...@flash.ece.uc.edu> wrote:
>>Back on 9/29/94, I posted a tally of the opinions on this thread, in
>><CwwH4...@nntpa.cb.att.com>. The Isiah backer outnumbered the Stockton
>>backer by 2-1. There are a total of about 30 contributors up to that point.
>That doesn't prove much as far as I'm concerned. In 1400, you could have
>gotten an easy 2-1 majority supporting the view that the world was flat.
That proves at least a few things:
1) There are people who don't use stats to evaluate and compare players.
True or false?
2) Whether the world is flat is a fact. Whether A is better than B is
not a fact, it's an opinion. If I have an opinion that A is better than B,
how are you going to disprove an opinion as incorrect?
3) Tom Burke's statement
"But I haven't seen too many people on this net take the position
that Isiah was a better point guard than John".
is then meaningless. It may be true, he hasn't seen it. One usually see
what he wants to see. But the fact is that on the net
a) There are N people preferring Isiah over Stockton, and M people
preferrning Stockton over Isiah
b) N > M
4) Meek's statement
"It seems to me and many others that the opinions mentioned by Dan are
shared by a large number of people out there."
is misleading.
a) If "the people out there" mean fans in this country, who shared the opinion
that Stockton is, careerwise, a better PG than Isiah? Is there any poll?
b) if "the people out there" mean netters, so what if you have a large
number of people? If a majority opinion isn't unanimous, there are always
minority voices. And of course there are always a large number of people
sharing it, since "large" is subjective. Meek can use 3 people as
large number of people sharing a minority opinion. It's like saying
"Hey, a large number of people (millions) supported Carter in the
1981 election. Can you say that millions of people aren't large
number of people?"
Yet a statement like this isn't telling anything.
Daniel Kirkland
> <CwwH4...@nntpa.cb.att.com>. The Isiah backer outnumbered the Stockton
> backer by 2-1. There are a total of about 30 contributors up to that point.
Of course this wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Thomas played
in a much bigger market (Detroit and the east) and received much (very much)
more media.
Then again...
DanK
Don Moses
>45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT (l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com) wrote:
>: >It seems to me and many others that the opinions mentioned by Dan are shared
>: >by a large number of people out there.
>: 1) So? just on this net, a larger number of people feel that Isiah > Stockton.
>Ah, this thread has been going on a long time. But I haven't seen too
>many people on this net take the position that Isiah was a better point
>guard than John.
>
>: 2) what large number of people out there share the opinion that
>: 'Stockton > Isiah' careerwise?
>
>Count me as one.
>
>- Tom Burke
Count me as another one for Stockton!
Don Moses
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
>: 1) So? just on this net, a larger number of people feel that Isiah > Stockton.
>Ah, this thread has been going on a long time. But I haven't seen too
>many people on this net take the position that Isiah was a better point
>guard than John.
much. And why does it have to be a better PG? how about a better player?
How about choosing X over Y for a franchise, a series, or a game?
Back on 9/29/94, I posted a tally of the opinions on this thread, in
<CwwH4...@nntpa.cb.att.com>. The Isiah backer outnumbered the Stockton
backer by 2-1. There are a total of about 30 contributors up to that point.
See, for every Tom Burke supporting Isiah, I can get 2 supporting Isiah. For
every Dave Meek, I can get another 2. So what you haven't seen doesn't
mean jack...
>: 2) what large number of people out there share the opinion that
>: 'Stockton > Isiah' careerwise?
>Count me as one.
You are already counted, which still isn't able to swing the pendulum...
Rick Brusuelas
> So? Just this statement tells me that you haven't followed this thread this
> much. And why does it have to be a better PG? how about a better player?
> How about choosing X over Y for a franchise, a series, or a game?
Because the discussion was "who was a better PG". Simple question. Even
simpler answer.
> Back on 9/29/94, I posted a tally of the opinions on this thread, in
> <CwwH4...@nntpa.cb.att.com>. The Isiah backer outnumbered the Stockton
> backer by 2-1. There are a total of about 30 contributors up to that point.
>
> See, for every Tom Burke supporting Isiah, I can get 2 supporting Isiah. For
> every Dave Meek, I can get another 2. So what you haven't seen doesn't
> mean jack...
OK Ed, post the list of people who chose Thomas and the list
of people that chose Stockton. My guess is that the people
that chose Stockton would be weighed down by Detroit Piston fans
(and I will try to be nice about this) who are showing more than a
little team bias when they voted. I would also guess that the people
that chose Stockton would not necessarily be Utah Jazz fans
(a safe guess, since I do not recall seeing many Utah fans
on this newsgroup) and since the three people who named
Stockton just in the past week don't appear to be Jazz fans.
So please post the lists and allow us to "judge the judges".
And there is no truth that the question "Who was the better PG,
Thomas or Stockton?" appears on standard intelligence
tests (and all those who answer Thomas fail the test).
[Gee, I tried really hard being nice...] ;-)
Rick Brusuelas
Sun Library
Christopher Conley
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT <l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com> wrote:
>In article <386rs8$9...@magus.cs.utah.edu>,
>Daniel Kirkland <kirk...@cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>>Of course this wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Thomas played
>>in a much bigger market (Detroit and the east) and received much (very much)
>>more media.
>1) Detroit a big market? What does the east have to do with Detroit? Don't
> the rest of the country despise the Pistons?
Aye, but at least they care about the Pistons, leading to the famous
"I can't stand X, but he's a darned good player" type comments. No
one pays any attention to the Jazz at all, so no one notices that
Stockton is excellent as well. (This, of course, is an overstatement,
but it was dead accurate about 3 years ago.)
>2) If your theory
>
> "INDIVIDUAL STATS IN A TEAM GAME ARE THE BEST WAY TO COMPARE INDIVIDUAL
> PLAYERS!"
>
> is so much influenced by market size, then your theory doesn't really
> have that much merits. You mean your so-called "best way" doesn't hold
> water for a small market player?
No, it means that most people judge a player's ability by the number
of times he shows up on the news rather than by the numbers which he
actually produces on the court. The combination of Detroit's local
market size and the national exposure which the Bad Boys received
has put Isiah in front of most of the nation, and the average TV
viewer assumes implicitly that the best players are on TV the most.
Exposure, not performance, produces public opinion. Zeke had it,
John hasn't. An opinion poll can't really lead to an inferred
difference in performance. If you'd care to put up numbers which
show that Zeke has outperformed John (not Nielsons, please), then
be my guest.
Care to pull up some numbers that show that Zeke's performance on
the court is superior to John's?
BTW, if it's not obvious, I'll side with the folks who claim that
Stockton is far superior to Thomas at equivalent career points.
Chris
Dave Meeks
>e...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Edward Ouellette) writes:
>
>>Well, I'm certainly not Dave, but the ability to hit the college 3
>>doesn't necessarily mean that Hill can hit the pro 3. I watched some
>>of both players and the Big Dog had no qualms about shooting from a longer
>>distance, while I rarely (never?) saw Hill shoot from NBA-3 distance.
>
>True true. I offer as an aside the *now confirmed* moving of the NBA 3-pt
>line to a uniform 22-foot radius. That should shore up the difference
>between the college and pro 3. Ummm...what's the college distance? :)
Just as a note. Remember that while the NBA 3pt line HAS been moved in,
it is still a good distance further than the collegiate 3pt line (which I
believe is about 19.5ft)...
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
Christopher Conley <con...@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>Um, gee, because it's rather difficult to hate someone and not
>have feelings about 'em at the same time?
Geez, speaking from your personal experience? but look at what you imply:
Piston fans (the much larger market): in this war, prefer someone on the
team they root for
Celtics/Knicks/Bulls fans (the east): in this war, prefer someone on the
team they root against
I mean, do you have any evidence of this behavioral pattern? I can easily
imply the opposite, which is as valid:
Piston fans: in this war, prefer someone on the team they don't root for
Celtics/Knicks/Bulls fans: in this war, prefer someone on the team they
don't root against.
In other words, your "Detroit and the East" excuse is nothing but BS
speculation. On the other hand, you can easily accept a more logical reason:
in this war, fans who root for or against the Pistons prefer Isiah because
they feel he's the better player.
>Clarification: Joe Average didn't notice Stockton until he
>started breaking assist records and making All-NBA teams.
Well, so, let's see. He broke the assist record back in 1988 (1128 vs
Thomas's 1123 back in 1985). He made the all-NBA team back in 1988.
He made the all-star team back in 1989.
>The enlightened folk of this group, of course, would have
>noticed him much sooner...
Of course, where do I get the opinions I collect on this thread?
from the enlightened folks of this group. Now does it mean your 'Detroit
and the east know Isiah but Stockton is an unknown' justification
doesn't hold water. You said it yourself:
The enlightened folk of this group, of course, would have
noticed him much sooner...
>
>Apologies, though, for calling everyone (myself included)
>who did notice Stockton "nobody". My timing is also, I
>believe, a little off; Stockton was fairly visible by '91.
>Actually, I'd wager that Stockton had Mark Eaton and Jeff
>Malone and the rest of the squad to blame. Basketball is
>a team sport, after all.
Son, Meek has been trying to downplay the Stockton supporting
cast since the inception of this argument (July), and there is still
no evidence that Isiah has a better supporting cast. I mean, where have
you been?
>Zeke got more attention because
>Zeke's team was better than Utah, not because Isiah was
>better than John.
You get any evidence on this? Since you are so much on stats, you want
to check out the stats of teammates?
>If you want to argue otherwise, you'll
>have to prove that John Salley was better than Karl Malone,
>since Salley also reaped the benefits of the team success.
>Heck, he even had his own brand of shoes, which Malone
>never has...
Geez, the same "Byron Scott/Danny Ainge is better than Michael Jordan
BS" back in 1990. Nope, I don't have to prove that John Salley was
better than Karl Malone. John Salley does not have the same role as
Karl Malone on their respective teams. I could, on the other hand, make
similiar case of Karl Malone vs Kareem, or John Stockton vs Magic...
>Besides, if Stockton tends to help his team win by comfortable
Premise false. Did Utah win many playoff games/series by comfortable
margins?
>>(especially the exposure in June). Maybe that tells you something,
>>that in many people's mind, exposure in June is indeed more important
>>than regular season stats.
>So? In the minds of many, Elvis Presley is still alive.
>What exactly does that tell me?
Well, you can easily ask them to prove it, i.e. Elvis is not alive unless
it's proven. In a subjective comparision of A vs B, how do you ask people
to prove it unless you restrict one criteria? How do you prove that your
criteria is the only one?
>Stats do, however, represent quantitative data
>to work from, rather than subjective impressions based on
>the zip code in which one lives.
If stats is only a product of the system, 'run & shoot', 'hold the
ball most of the time stagnant offense', how isn't it subjective
impression? Are you saying that a scorer in a run&shoot is always
better than a player in a slow-down offense?
>Last time I checked, the programs for the Finals did not read
>"Isiah Thomas vs. Portland Trail Blazers". In other words,
>Isiah's TEAM outperformed Stockton's TEAM, which proves nothing
>about the relative merits of the two players.
Last time I check, I don't see any rule of 'quantative data totally
reflects player ability' stated anywhere. Your problem is that you
try to use quantitative data to masquerate as objectivity.
>If I though
>that the remainder of the Jazz and Pistons were comparable,
>Detroit's playoff performance would be significant.
But you have no proof that the supporting cast are incomparable. What
do you rely on?
stats? I have posted the Jazz-Stockton stats and Pistons-Isiah stats 2 months
ago, no evidence that the Jazz-Stockton is inferior to the Pistons-Zeke.
subjective impression? But wait, if you are against using subjective
impression to compare Zeke vs Stockton, how can you use subjective impression
to evaluate {Malone, Malone, Eaton ... } vs { Dumars, Laimbeer ...}
See the double standard? You are not he first hypocrite on this.
>Since I don't believe that, comparing the two based on team
>achievement doesn't seem logical.
Neither is comparing the two based on individual stats, which is more
or less the result of the system the team runs.
Tom
: >OK Ed, post the list of people who chose Thomas and the list
: As of 10/18/94:
: pro Isiah pro Stockton
: Lor x
: Meek x
: Chammas x
: Rick Brusuelas x
: Raghu Mani x
: Sunil Kosawatta x
: Tony Gerber x
: Eric x
: Tony Wesley x
: Andrew Carter x
: Giov Bonvicini x
: Jim Nagle x
: Craig Paulsen x
: David Shao x
: Craig Bowden x
: Michael Fester x
: Matt Mitchell x
: Paul Osmond x
: Russ Smith x
: Joseph Gumbs x
: Sasha Samberg-Champion x
: Bhimaraju Kalidindi x
: Richard Robb x
: Peter Geoffrey Lewis x
: awesome x
: Tom Burke x
: Ken Mao x
: Richard Lamb x
: Mark Sarowitz x
: Mike Janik x
: Justin Pak x
: Dan Kirkland x
: Rajan Sarma x
: Demetri Bonaros x
: Yn3 Dykehouse x
: Frank Yeh x
: Mad Scientist x
: Don Moses x
: Terrance Wimberly* x
: * e-mail to me.
Thanks Lor, for reposting this data. This pretty much shuts me up.
Stockton may have the stats, but Thomas has impressed more people.
OTOH, there appear to be some names missing. Let me review this.
- Tom Burke
Edward Ouellette
>[list deleted]
>Thanks Lor, for reposting this data. This pretty much shuts me up.
>Stockton may have the stats, but Thomas has impressed more people.
>OTOH, there appear to be some names missing. Let me review this.>
>- Tom Burke
If we are really making it a popularity contest, chalk me up for Stockton.
Public opinion doesn't really have much to do with who's the better player
IMO.
Ed O.
Cyrus J. Lee
Ouellette) wrote:
> If we are really making it a popularity contest, chalk me up for Stockton.
> Public opinion doesn't really have much to do with who's the better player
> IMO.
>
> Ed O.
I don't think this is a mere popularity contest; it's just who people on
rsbp believe is the better player, taking all factors (both tangible and
intangible) into account. As much as it pains me to say this, Thomas is
the better player, IMHO. Us Blazer fans painfully recall how two all-time
great players rose for the occasion and dashed our hopes of a championship
in 1990 and/or 1992. :<
--
Cyru...@nwu.edu
m
m
Bobby Davis
>Back on 9/29/94, I posted a tally of the opinions on this thread, in
><CwwH4...@nntpa.cb.att.com>. The Isiah backer outnumbered the Stockton
>backer by 2-1. There are a total of about 30 contributors up to that point.
That doesn't prove much as far as I'm concerned. In 1400, you could have
gotten an easy 2-1 majority supporting the view that the world was flat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Bob "The Glide" Davis Clarence Weatherspoon Update: Led the Sixers in |
| r...@flash.ece.uc.edu minutes, rebounds, blocks, and points. Spoon! |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric
>Without a doubt John Stockton is twice the player that Isaih ever was. All the
This is why i don't normally post to this thread...who started this up again,
anyways? >:-(
U exaggerrate to the extreme. Stockton may be able to lay claim to
being a better point guard, but not twice the PG that Isiah was.
And as far as being a better *player*, Zeke is BETTER than Stockton.
That's the point most on both sides of the argument have been making.
Isiah is the better player, but Stocktion is the better PG.
OK, now that everyone has said it, can we stop? Of course not!
everbody sing!
this is the thread that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends,
somebody started writing it not knowing what it was, and they'll
continue writing it forever just because:
this is the theread that never ends...
(REPEAT)
>stats point to Stockton's assists but he has consistently averaged around 17-18
BIMBO! Stockton is 3rd all time in assists, ISIAH IS 4TH!
Stockton is better here, but not too many other are! And that doesn't
make Stockton TWICE the PLAYER that Isiah EVER WAS!
>pts. per game over his career. Count that in with 11-12 assists per game and
>you'll be thinking Isiah who. I have an ex-girlfriend who is first cousins
Unless u actually LOOK at Isiah's stats!
>with Stockton. When I first met him I couldn't believe how short he was. What
U want short? we got short! Zeke is short!
>a player, he isn't an athlete. Just a great b-ball player who shines every day
>over Thomas. Zenner
That's your opinion...keep it to yourself next time.
>Chad Zenner
I wonder when this will end....maybe never?
--eric
Edward Ouellette
Don Moses <dmo...@rebus.dsd.ES.COM> wrote:
>Ed, Who do you think is the best point guard now? (playing this year)
>
John Stockton.
Ed O.
who always will answer for Eds everywhere
Matthew Roy Raymond
(except for the passing), maybe what some call a "New-Age" point guard.
Stockton is a better distributer and defensive player. They are both great
players in their own rights.
I think what people are looking for are intagibles. Things that
you can't write down but know are there. I think Isiah commands a little
more respect (but I don't think you earn it by hitting people in the back
of the head).
Maybe a better comparisom might be Magic and Isiah. They played roughly
the same game in the same way (except for obvious things such as Magic's
versatility).
It's sort of like who's better, Shaq or David Robinson. While they
are both centers, they both play completely different games. Shaq the pure
force and David the finnesse.
Madda
Mikko A Kurhila
I'd give also my vote to Stockton .
M.K.
Stephen Cook
>In article <38bp7h$7...@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
>Edward Ouellette <e...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
>>If we are really making it a popularity contest, chalk me up for Stockton.
>>Public opinion doesn't really have much to do with who's the better player
>>IMO.
>Geez, you mean you can find out who's the better player from the Bible or
>the Koran?
>I mean, what exactly have much to do with 'who's the better player'? Stats?
>So where do you get a rule or a fact that who's the better player?
Championship rings....
//\\
__________________________ \\
|Stephen Cook \\ .__=.\\
|sc...@mailer.acns.fsu.edu \____ ,' -(@)\-\<)
|Institute for Health and \ \______.,(_______/_:\\
|Human Services Research |==.\______// # /# #\ || : \\____
|(904)644-2710 (FX)644-8331 \\\ =''=//|_|##(O)##|| `./\---.
|_______________________ /\ / ,`--'./# ======='//, //.\ . \
_______ \ \_(_:_@O__)_///<_>O//// ( (@O ) )
_____ \_____________/======'O' \ `-' /
__`-----'__________________`---'___
If anybody agreed with my opinions, it would not be my superiors.
************Miami Dolphins: 5-2 AFC East Leaders!!**************
Tom
: >In article <38bp7h$7...@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
: >Edward Ouellette <e...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
: >>If we are really making it a popularity contest, chalk me up for Stockton.
: >>Public opinion doesn't really have much to do with who's the better player
: >>IMO.
: >Geez, you mean you can find out who's the better player from the Bible or
: >the Koran?
: >I mean, what exactly have much to do with 'who's the better player'? Stats?
: >So where do you get a rule or a fact that who's the better player?
Dream Team membership!
- Tom Burke
Matt Mitchell
> It's sort of like who's better, Shaq or David Robinson. While they
>are both centers, they both play completely different games. Shaq the pure
>force and David the finnesse.
This is a great point, perhaps should be the ultimate stopper to this thread
(although I know that the Lord Almighty would have a tough time stopping
this one). These two guys are apposite ends of the PG spectrum, so its
impossible to compare them.
Thanks for this comment....I hope the participants in the joust see the
sense in it.
Matt Mitchell |\| |_ _ _______________
mm...@ro.cc.rochester.edu | | | \| || _____ __ _|
\_/| \ || ___/ | | _\ \
| ||_||____/ |_||____/
\_\
Tom
: 3) Tom Burke's statement
: "But I haven't seen too many people on this net take the position
: that Isiah was a better point guard than John".
: is then meaningless. It may be true, he hasn't seen it. One usually see
: what he wants to see. But the fact is that on the net
: a) There are N people preferring Isiah over Stockton, and M people
: preferrning Stockton over Isiah
: b) N > M
I miss this talley, can you repost it?
- Tom Burke
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
the rest of the country despise the Pistons?
2) If your theory
"INDIVIDUAL STATS IN A TEAM GAME ARE THE BEST WAY TO COMPARE INDIVIDUAL
PLAYERS!"
is so much influenced by market size, then your theory doesn't really
have that much merits. You mean your so-called "best way" doesn't hold
water for a small market player?
--
Daniel Kirkland
|> >> <CwwH4...@nntpa.cb.att.com>. The Isiah backer outnumbered the Stockton
|> >> backer by 2-1. There are a total of about 30 contributors up to that point.
|> >
|> >Of course this wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Thomas played
|> >in a much bigger market (Detroit and the east) and received much (very much)
|> >more media.
|> 1) Detroit a big market? What does the east have to do with Detroit? Don't
|> the rest of the country despise the Pistons?
|>
|> 2) If your theory
|>
|> "INDIVIDUAL STATS IN A TEAM GAME ARE THE BEST WAY TO COMPARE INDIVIDUAL
|> PLAYERS!"
|>
|> is so much influenced by market size, then your theory doesn't really
|> have that much merits. You mean your so-called "best way" doesn't hold
|> water for a small market player?
What???
There you go again. Totally misreading and/or adding something that was
not there!
I did not say anything about stats being affected by market size.
My comment about market size was with reference to your comment about
Isiah backers outnumbering Stockton backers by 2-1. Market size (and
the media) have a very big affect on polls (polls of any type).
Then again, so does the person counting!
DanK
Daniel Kirkland
|> pro Isiah pro Stockton
|> Dan Kirkland x
Hey! How did my name get pro Stockton? Well, I suppose it is a bit
obvious, but I don't recall ever saying who I thought was better.
What I did say was that since Thomas is not playing anymore, it doesn't
really matter who is better. Not that it mattered when he was playing.
DanK
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
Rick Brusuelas <god...@dogpower.Corp.Sun.COM> wrote:
>Because the discussion was "who was a better PG". Simple question. Even
>simpler answer.
'who was a better PG'? Since July, I've only seen subjects of
Isiah Thomas
NBA Championship as a Statistic
IT's Supporting cast
Cartwright's Rings
Isiah/Stockton
Zeke vs Stockton
Isiah Thomas vs John Stockton
You care to tell us when you restricted this thread to be "who was
a better PG"? Based on the last three subjects, we can even discuss
who's a better student, who's better looking, or who's a better
politician.
Only 'who's a better PG' discussion? maybe in your dream ...
Besides, Isiah's a PG, Stockton's a PG, if Isiah's a better player,
how isn't he a better PG? You mean he could be a better center?
* e-mail to me.
>of people that chose Stockton. My guess is that the people
>that chose Stockton would be weighed down by Detroit Piston fans
>(and I will try to be nice about this) who are showing more than a
>little team bias when they voted. I would also guess that the people
>that chose Stockton would not necessarily be Utah Jazz fans
So what? what if they are Stockton fans, like Meek and you. Are you
going to discard their opinion then? good...
>(a safe guess, since I do not recall seeing many Utah fans
>on this newsgroup) and since the three people who named
>Stockton just in the past week don't appear to be Jazz fans.
>
>So please post the lists and allow us to "judge the judges".
I don't know what's 'judge the judges'. The issue here is
the # of people favoring Isiah or Stockton. Are you saying that
biased Stockton fans (I mean, how much more biased can these guys be)
don't count?
X Wing
>Because the discussion was "who was a better PG". Simple question. Even
>simpler answer.
In a playoff series or one important game I would rather have Thomas because
He seemed to have knack for taking over a lot of these important games when his
team needed him to. I am a Rockets fan- I do remember Stockton almost doing
this to the Rockets in the fourth game of the playoffs last year- but this
is the only time I can remember him almost lifting his team all by himself in
such an important game. They both are great point guards though.
>So please post the lists and allow us to "judge the judges".
well, I am neither a Jazz nor Pistons fan but have seen more of the Jazz than
Pistons. I liked Thomas better- but wouldn't have minded either one in their
prime to have played for the Rockets when we really needed a point guard-
before we had Sam Cassell, of course. :)
Tom
<< good points deleted >>
: so I think that Stockton is better at the position and Thomas
: would be better at the 2, but you gotta play with the hand you are dealt.
: Note that this last sentence does not say which is the better overall player,
: just which is better at certain positions. I stand behind my original state-
: ment that the two cannot be compared. It's like comparing a point-guard
: with a shooting-guard.
One question, which one makes a higher percentage of their shots?
- Tom Burke
Charles Nahm
>Stockton may have the stats, but Thomas has impressed more people.
>OTOH, there appear to be some names missing. Let me review this.
>- Tom Burke
I know I'm probably too late to vote, but I would emphatically vote for
Isiah Thomas... >=]
Charles Nahm
P.S. Pretty low to question Ed Lor's honesty...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Nahm
300 Regina St. Bldg 1 Apt. 207
Waterloo, Ont.
(519) 886-1509
Ryan Bona
On 24 Oct 1994, CHAD wrote:
> Without a doubt John Stockton is twice the player that Isaih ever was. All the
> stats point to Stockton's assists but he has consistently averaged around 17-18
> pts. per game over his career. Count that in with 11-12 assists per game and
> you'll be thinking Isiah who. I have an ex-girlfriend who is first cousins
> with Stockton. When I first met him I couldn't believe how short he was. What
> a player, he isn't an athlete. Just a great b-ball player who shines every day
> over Thomas. Zenner
> In article <CxvEn...@tfs.com>, to...@tfs.com (Tom) writes:
> > 45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT (l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com) wrote:
> > : >It seems to me and many others that the opinions mentioned by Dan are shared
> > : >by a large number of people out there.
> > : 1) So? just on this net, a larger number of people feel that Isiah > Stockton.
> > Ah, this thread has been going on a long time. But I haven't seen too
> > many people on this net take the position that Isiah was a better point
> > guard than John.
> >
> > : 2) what large number of people out there share the opinion that
> > : 'Stockton > Isiah' careerwise?
> >
> > Count me as one.
> >
> > - Tom Burke
> >
> > --
> > -- ^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^
> > "I have seen that those who are incompetent, may have better staying power than
> > those who are competent, because they better present the company image." - Tom
> > -- ^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^
> --
> Chad Zenner
>
>
Excuse me, Stockton the better player? Puh-leese! Let's look at those
stats up there please?
17-18 points a game. Zeke over most of his career averaged around those
points all the time. Don't forget his first few seasons with the Pistons
either, when the Pistons couldn't beat my old high school team on any
given night, he was averaging over 20 a game.
11-12 assists a night. Yeah I'd be able to get those same numbers every
night if I had Karl Malone working the paint for me. Isiah always knew
how to spread the ball around.
Some other points I'd like to make. Isiah was and always will be one of
the few players that you could count on in the clutch situations of the
game. ALWAYS!!!!!! And I don't remember seeing the Jazz go to the
Finals any year that Stockton has been around. Zeke's been there THREE
times, and won it twice. Who can forget that valiant effort he put
together in Games 6 and 7 of the 88 finals? In some stats, you are
right that Stockton is better. But as we all know, it takes alot more
than just stats to win championships. It takes heart and desire to win
also. Isiah knew how to win, and he did. When Stockton actually wins a
championship then I'll consider it.
Till next time...
Ryan B.
rya...@cw-f1.umd.umich.edu
"If you don't expect too much from me
you might not be let down."
----Gin Blossoms "Hey Jealousy"
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
Daniel Kirkland <kirk...@cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>There you go again. Totally misreading and/or adding something that was
>not there!
>
>I did not say anything about stats being affected by market size.
Why does market size matter? If stats are the only thing that counts, market
size should be irrelevant. Why is it an issue?
Stats are facts, they can be linearly ordered. There is no two ways about
them. You can play in Idaho and still be the best player of the world if
you have the best stats.
Or do you mean one assist in Detroit is counted as 1.5?
>My comment about market size was with reference to your comment about
>Isiah backers outnumbering Stockton backers by 2-1. Market size (and
>the media) have a very big affect on polls (polls of any type).
But then in that case, there's really no standard criteria of comparing
players. It's all ***SUBJECTIVE***. The more fans like player A? Tough,
you just have to eat it.
Then your theory
"INDIVIDUAL STATS IN A TEAM GAME ARE THE BEST WAY TO COMPARE INDIVIDUAL
PLAYERS!"
is not truth or fact. It's simply an OPINION in your camp without majority
support.
>Then again, so does the person counting!
Do I have a big affect on polls? Wow, you get any evidence on that?
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
>Dream Team membership!
Dumbo, the Dream Team was selected after the 1991 season. So the performance
of 1990-91 season was the major factor. If a player didn't perform as well
during that season, you mean he's then an inferior player over a career?
Take Kevin McHale and Moses Malone. Are you saying that Drexler/Mullin/
Ewing/Robinson have better careers than McHale/Malone?
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
Rick Brusuelas <god...@dogpower.Corp.Sun.COM> wrote:
>(1). That the people that "voted" for Thomas were heavily biased by Piston
> fans while the people who "voted" for Stockton were not necessarily
> Jazz fans (Bonvincini, Smth, and Brusuelas are GSW fans, Nagle is a
> Bullet fan Meeks a Celtic fan, Robb is a Sonic fan, Osmond is a Bull
> fan? etc).
Well, Meek and Brusuelas are Stockton fans. If you talk about bias,
you can't have more personal bias than that. Yes, throw them out...
>(2) That is you were to ask for a list of the most knowledgeable
> RSBPers, you may very well get a list that would include the
> following: Meeks, Brusuelas, Bonvicini, Nagle, Fester, Osmond,
> Smith, Robb, Mad Scientist, Moses.
Most knowledgeable RSBPers? who appointed Brusuelas as most
knowledgable RSBPers. I think all fans are equal, at least as far as
voting/surveying is concerned. Those who think they are more knowledgable
are just disguising their bias and insecurities ...
Face it, Rick, your opinion on Stockton is a minority opinion. If that's
not the way how most of the fans evaluate players (intangibles, clutch
performance, less value on stats etc.), you just have to live with it.
Maybe you can take your "knowledgeable" point of view of Stockton/Isiah
back home and sleep with it.
Besides, you can also take your knowledgeable list of RSBPers home too ...
> And if you were interested in a list of the *least* knowledgeable
> RSBPers, you would likely get a list that started with Lor, ...
Well, if a least "knowledgable" RSBPers can abuse a "knowledgeable" RSBPers
like you in a basketball argument, you sure can keep your criteria of
"knowledgeable", I want no part of it.
>I think the "judge the judges" statement is quite clear and well proven
>by the lists provided.
If we want to judge the judge, the first thing is to throw out all the
Stockton fans. Since they are Stockton fans, how can they give an
objective vote?
Matt Turvey
On Wed, 26 Oct 1994, Tom wrote:
>
> One question, which one makes a higher percentage of their shots?
>
> - Tom Burke
One question. which one has 2 rings.
MattT
Tom
: Excuse me, Stockton the better player? Puh-leese! Let's look at those
: stats up there please?
: 17-18 points a game. Zeke over most of his career averaged around those
: points all the time. Don't forget his first few seasons with the Pistons
: either, when the Pistons couldn't beat my old high school team on any
: given night, he was averaging over 20 a game.
: 11-12 assists a night. Yeah I'd be able to get those same numbers every
: night if I had Karl Malone working the paint for me. Isiah always knew
: how to spread the ball around.
You seem to be ignoring some career statistics.
Ball handling (ignoring the obvious passing advantage for John):
Thomas Stockton
Turnovers per game 3.31 2.98
Steals per game 1.22 2.47
Shooting:
Field Goal PCT .438 .532
Three point PCT .327 .356
Free Throw PCT .704 .809
OTOH, if you think point guards whould rebound, Thomas does hold a
significant >one rebound a game advantage.
Other than Thomas was surrounded by better players than Stockton was,
why would anybody think he was a better player and how do you measure
it?
- Tom Burke
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
>Other than Thomas was surrounded by better players than Stockton was,
>why would anybody think he was a better player and how do you measure
>it?
--
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
> One question, which one makes a higher percentage of their shots?
of it...
One question, why is a player who makes such a high percentage of their
shots only a 3rd/4th option in their offense?
In 1988, Stockton shot .574, but took only 9.6 FGA/game.
In 1989, Stockton shot .538, but took only 11.3 FGA/game.
In 1994, Stockton shot .528, but took only 10.6 FGA/game.
In each case, he's at least 3rd on the team in FGA.
The possible explanations:
1) He's not a winner. If he really has that ability to shoot well, he should
have taken the bulk of the shots to help the team. Instead, he would give
up the ball to the likes of Griffith, Hansen, Chambers, Corbin, etc. In other
words, he could keep his high FG%, while picking up a few assists from the
poor shooters. The fact that Griffith and company missed a lot of FGs
wouldn't reflect bad on Stock. Assist is only a stat culmulated only on
successful FGs . He wouldn't be faulted for distributing the ball to
players who misses a lot.
2) If Stockton shoots so well only because he serves as a decoy of the
offense, i.e. to keep the defense honest, then his shooting can't be compared
to Isiah's, who has a completely different role. Let's see what Stockton
can do when he's the #1 option and gets 15-20 FGA before we decide...
Dave Meeks
>In article <3867ke$k...@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
>Bobby Davis <r...@flash.ece.uc.edu> wrote:
>>>Back on 9/29/94, I posted a tally of the opinions on this thread, in
>>><CwwH4...@nntpa.cb.att.com>. The Isiah backer outnumbered the Stockton
>>>backer by 2-1. There are a total of about 30 contributors up to that point.
>>That doesn't prove much as far as I'm concerned. In 1400, you could have
>>gotten an easy 2-1 majority supporting the view that the world was flat.
>
>
>1) There are people who don't use stats to evaluate and compare players.
>True or false?
Obviously... you are one that doesn't...
>
>2) Whether the world is flat is a fact. Whether A is better than B is
>not a fact, it's an opinion. If I have an opinion that A is better than B,
>how are you going to disprove an opinion as incorrect?
Don't try an be overly simplisitic. I guess if I came out and claimed
'Walter Bond is the greatest basketball player to ever play', you will be
unable to disprove this opinion, correct...
So, we now have it...
"Walter Bond is the greatest basketball player to ever play"...
>
>3) Tom Burke's statement
>
> "But I haven't seen too many people on this net take the position
> that Isiah was a better point guard than John".
>
>is then meaningless. It may be true, he hasn't seen it. One usually see
>what he wants to see. But the fact is that on the net
>
>a) There are N people preferring Isiah over Stockton, and M people
> preferrning Stockton over Isiah
>b) N > M
Is this a definite 'fact'? Funny that a large number of the 'names' you have
supporting your side I have never seen post anything about the subject.
And, it seems that since you made this claim, many more people have come out
in 'support' of Stockton. Care to post the comments from each of these
people to show that their opinion was stated as such?
Until such time, your claim of 'N > M' is still nothing more than opinion.
>
>4) Meek's statement
>
> "It seems to me and many others that the opinions mentioned by Dan are
> shared by a large number of people out there."
>
>is misleading.
Is it?? How is it 'misleading'. This comment was based on a statement
that 'individual stats are the best way (though far from perfect) to
compare individual players' (paraphrased). You then claimed
"That may be the best way in your feeble mind. Fortunately what's in
your feeble mind is not the truth..."
It was then that I countered with the fact that this is a feeling that is
supported by many other individuals. Let's take a look at what this group
consists of...
a) All those individuals who have already mentioned it as being such
on the net...
b) All those people who create comparision listings such as the
Schick/Tendex/etc... formulas, and give out their awards based
on it.
c) The NBA, at least to a large degree, seems to value individual stats
very highly
d) All those fantasy leagues
e) etc...
So, it seems like there are a large number of people out there who share
a very similar opinion. And, your comment concerning Dan and his 'feeble
mind' notwithstanding, it seems to be a very well supported opinion as well.
>
>a) If "the people out there" mean fans in this country, who shared the opinion
>that Stockton is, careerwise, a better PG than Isiah? Is there any poll?
Well, hard to say 'careerwise' at this point, but, we do know that during
the last 7 years (since 87-88), John Stockton has been considered the better
player. We have undeniable proof of this... the AllNBA selections. Stockton
has been considered one of the top players in the league in each of those
seasons, whereas Isiah has not been. And, coincedently, 87-88 was the first
year that Stockton was the full time starter for the Jazz as well.
>
>b) if "the people out there" mean netters, so what if you have a large
>number of people? If a majority opinion isn't unanimous, there are always
>minority voices. And of course there are always a large number of people
>sharing it, since "large" is subjective. Meek can use 3 people as
>large number of people sharing a minority opinion. It's like saying
>
> "Hey, a large number of people (millions) supported Carter in the
> 1981 election. Can you say that millions of people aren't large
> number of people?"
>
>Yet a statement like this isn't telling anything.
Sure it is. It tells you that a large number of people supported Carter.
This is a true statement. And, if you had tried to make a claim such as
'Only in your feeble mind did Carter have any support', it would show a great
deal. No, Carter did not have the MAJORITY, but he did still have a large
number of supporters out there.
As for the 'stats' issue, it seems to have quite a large number of supporters.
But, we've been through that already...
--
David T. Meeks || "Beating with life you promised life,
Software Engineer || security, happiness. Unfortunate son cornered,
VMark Software, Inc. || cowering in the pit of circling panes of glass
da...@vmark.com || that surround and reveal the ever present 'It'.
Dave Meeks
>In article M...@nntpa.cb.att.com, l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com (45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:
>> >OK Ed, post the list of people who chose Thomas and the list
>> As of 10/18/94:
>>
>> pro Isiah pro Stockton
>
>
>Pro Stockton: Meeks, Brusuelas, Bonvicini, Nagle, Fester, Osmond,
>
>Bowden, Gumbs, Sarowitz, Pak, Dykehouse (except for Lor, all Piston fans
>and these are just people I recall woofing for the Pistons at some point
>or another) and others.
>
>Essentially, your list proved two things:
>
>(1). That the people that "voted" for Thomas were heavily biased by Piston
> fans while the people who "voted" for Stockton were not necessarily
> Jazz fans (Bonvincini, Smth, and Brusuelas are GSW fans, Nagle is a
> Bullet fan Meeks a Celtic fan, Robb is a Sonic fan, Osmond is a Bull
> fan? etc).
Not only that, but I seriously don't remember half of these people making
any comments whatsoever concerning the issue, let alone direct support of
it....
>
>(2) That is you were to ask for a list of the most knowledgeable
> RSBPers, you may very well get a list that would include the
> following: Meeks, Brusuelas, Bonvicini, Nagle, Fester, Osmond,
> Smith, Robb, Mad Scientist, Moses.
>
> And if you were interested in a list of the *least* knowledgeable
> RSBPers, you would likely get a list that started with Lor, ...
>
>> >So please post the lists and allow us to "judge the judges".
>> I don't know what's 'judge the judges'. The issue here is
>> the # of people favoring Isiah or Stockton. Are you saying that
>> biased Stockton fans (I mean, how much more biased can these guys be)
>> don't count?
>
>I think the "judge the judges" statement is quite clear and well proven
>by the lists provided.
>
>Rick Brusuelas (on again, off again the List of Best RSBPers)
>Sun Library
Heh... I'd agree... Too bad we can't get the opinion of a few of the other
net.notables such as Toni, Patricia, Jazzy, Tom, etc...
How about it folks... care to voice your opinions on the matter :) :)
Dave
Ed Costello
Meeks) wrote:
> In article <38gnqk$r...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> god...@dogpower.Corp.Sun.COM
writes:
> >In article M...@nntpa.cb.att.com, l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com
(45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT) writes:
> >> >OK Ed, post the list of people who chose Thomas and the list
> >> As of 10/18/94:
My vote goes for Stockton.
--
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
Dave Meeks <da...@vmark.com> wrote:
>Don't try an be overly simplisitic. I guess if I came out and claimed
>'Walter Bond is the greatest basketball player to ever play', you will be
>unable to disprove this opinion, correct...
you mean by an incorrect opinion? And who's Walter Bond anyway?
>So, we now have it...
>"Walter Bond is the greatest basketball player to ever play"...
Hey, if you think he's the greatest, so be it. You are entitled to your
opinion. I can only tell you that it's a minority opinion.
>>a) There are N people preferring Isiah over Stockton, and M people
>> preferrning Stockton over Isiah
>>b) N > M
>Is this a definite 'fact'?
Of course, the tally as of 10/31/94 is 36-18.
>Funny that a large number of the 'names' you have
>supporting your side I have never seen post anything about the subject.
Funny, are you saying that the only facts in this world are the ones ***YOU
HAVE SEEN***? Meek, if you choose to hide your head in the sand, it's not
my problem.
>And, it seems that since you made this claim, many more people have come out
>in 'support' of Stockton.
And, you know what's so funny about this? Your "many more people" is countered
by 2 times as many people coming out in support of Isiah. This is the tally
on different dates:
9/29/94 20-10, Isiah, posted in <CwwH4...@nntpa.cb.att.com>
10/21/94 26-13, Isiah, posted in <Cy1K2...@nntpa.cb.att.com>
10/31/94 36-18, Isiah
Three people sent me e-mail on this subject. And you know what the tally
is? 2-1, Isiah.
See, you have been hiding in your hole for the past 2 weeks. And you have
the nerve to make such a true but misleading statement
"many more people have come out in support of Stockton"?
>Care to post the comments from each of these
>people to show that their opinion was stated as such?
The total # of articles I saved since July come up to 1.6 MB. So no, I
won't dump 1.6 MB on the group. If you want to see any specific person's
post, let me know.
>Until such time, your claim of 'N > M' is still nothing more than opinion.
Dumbo, these articles were posted on the net. They are facts. If you choose not
to archive the facts, that's NOT my problem. I don't even have any obligation
to show you any post, since the evidence was there on the net and you
chose not to collect it.
The only obligation I have is to disclose the e-mail from Paul Wimberly,
Jazzy J, and Dave Olsen on the subject.
>Is it?? How is it 'misleading'. This comment was based on a statement
>that 'individual stats are the best way (though far from perfect) to
>compare individual players' (paraphrased). You then claimed
>
> "That may be the best way in your feeble mind. Fortunately what's in
> your feeble mind is not the truth..."
>
>It was then that I countered with the fact that this is a feeling that is
>supported by many other individuals.
A feeling supported by many other individual can be misleading, if there
are two times more individuals sharing an opposite opinion. Why do you
present one side of the story while not presenting the other side? Is it
because your side is feeble?
>Let's take a look at what this group
>consists of...
> a) All those individuals who have already mentioned it as being such
> on the net...
2 times as many people not sharing it.
> b) All those people who create comparision listings such as the
> Schick/Tendex/etc... formulas, and give out their awards based
> on it.
Yeh, the MVP voters not sharing it, or the Schick winner should be the MVP
each year. Hey, he has the best stats. By your defintiion, he must be the best
player.
> c) The NBA, at least to a large degree, seems to value individual stats
> very highly
You get any facts on this? I see that the NBA, at least to a large degree,
seems to value the playoffs more highly.
> d) All those fantasy leagues
Yep, that maybe one. So you claim that stats are only good for fantasy
leagues? Unfortunately, the NBA games are played on the court, not in fantasy
leagues.
>Well, hard to say 'careerwise' at this point, but, we do know that during
>the last 7 years (since 87-88), John Stockton has been considered the better
>player.
In the regular season, probably. Yet when a lot of people form the opinion
on them, they tend to put more weight on the post-season.
>We have undeniable proof of this... the AllNBA selections.
You have undeniable proof for better player in the regular season. You get
any AllNBA selections in the playoffs? It seems like the playoff is a
game disregarding all these allNBA selections and honors. I see all the
accolates of Isiah in the playoffs, very few (except your Utah-Houston game
4) of Stockton.
>Stockton has been considered one of the top players in the league in each
>of those seasons, whereas Isiah has not been.
Isiah has got a playoff MVP during that span. Do you mean that the 1990
post-season wasn't one of those seasons?
>Sure it is. It tells you that a large number of people supported Carter.
>This is a true statement.
As I say, a true statement can also be misleading, if you try not to tell
the bigger picture. It's just like keep saying that "many teams in NBA
history come back from a 3-1 series deficit" and imply it as "an easily
attainable goal".
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
Dave Meeks <da...@vmark.com> wrote:
>Not only that, but I seriously don't remember half of these people making
>any comments whatsoever concerning the issue, let alone direct support of
>it....
so these comments don't exist? Meek, it's not my fault that you have amnesia,
or too careless not to archive the articles in July.
Never mind that you responded to articles to many of these posters...
Direct support of it? How many direct support do you have for Stockton, yet
you have been ranting and raving many people supporting Stockton, you care
to show us the posts?
I'll see whose Stockton supporting posts you've got.
>Heh... I'd agree... Too bad we can't get the opinion of a few of the other
>net.notables such as Toni, Patricia, Jazzy, Tom, etc...
Yes, net.notables like Jazzy sent me a e-mail. He preferred Isiah, well?
And I don't see how your any of your net.notables' votes are heavier than a
non-notable poster's...
So Jazzy, should I post your e-mail?
Dave Meeks
>
>> : >So where do you get a rule or a fact that who's the better player?
>>
>> Dream Team membership!
>>
>> - Tom Burke
>>
>>
>Larry Bird was a better player than Joe Dumars, at that time? Just because
Yes, I can...
Player PPG RPG APG SPG BPG FG% FT% 3pt%
Dumars (90-91) 20.4 2.3 5.5 1.11 .09 48.1% 89.0% 31.1%
Bird (90-91) 19.4 8.5 7.2 1.80 .97 45.4% 89.1% 38.9%
Dumars (91-92) 19.9 2.3 4.6 0.87 .15 44.8% 86.7% 40.8%
Bird (91-92) 20.2 9.6 6.8 0.93 .73 46.6% 92.6% 40.6%
Bird enjoyed huge leads in rebounding/game, big leads in assists/game, and
leads in steals and blocks per/game. He also had leads in FT% as well.
They split the ppg lead, the FG% lead, and the 3pt% lead.
There was not one area noted above that Dumars was 'better' than Bird, while
Bird was much better at rebounding (a given with the size difference) as
well as assists/passing (and Dumars played the point for a good part of the
90-91 season). Looking at the numbers, Bird led in 5 categories for both
years, and the other 3 in at least one year.
The only area of the game that Dumars was 'better' than Bird was defense, and
here he had a definite edge.
jaz...@news.delphi.com
>Dave Meeks <da...@vmark.com> wrote:
>>Don't try an be overly simplisitic. I guess if I came out and claimed
>>'Walter Bond is the greatest basketball player to ever play', you will be
>>unable to disprove this opinion, correct...
>Geez, you care to tell me how an opinion like this is incorrect? What do
>you mean by an incorrect opinion? And who's Walter Bond anyway?
Swingman, now on the Jazz (last I checked). Out of Minnesota,
and went to HS at Collins HS in Chicago, where he was teammates
with Randy Brown of the Kings...
>>So, we now have it...
>>"Walter Bond is the greatest basketball player to ever play"...
>Hey, if you think he's the greatest, so be it. You are entitled to your
>opinion. I can only tell you that it's a minority opinion.
Good point. Anyone can believe whatever they want. Say Bond's
HS coach felt that Bond was the best player he'd ever seen play.
That's his opinion. Of course, a minority opinion, but it is
his opinion.
Jazzy J
Ryan Bona
Isiah thomas by a mile!!!!!!
ryan b.
rya...@umd.umich.edu
boparai sanji s
It's a good point untill he tries to pass it off as fact, that
is.
Jazzy J
>
>
>
Edward Ouellette
Dave Meeks <da...@vmark.com> wrote:
>In article <Pine.Sola.3.91.94102...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu> boparai sanji s <bop...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu> writes:
>>
>>> : >So where do you get a rule or a fact that who's the better player?
>>> Dream Team membership!
>>> - Tom Burke
>>>
>> The last straw! The DT was a popularity contest! Can you tell me that
>>Larry Bird was a better player than Joe Dumars, at that time? Just because
>
>Yes, I can...
>
Ah, Dave. Will you never learn? Piston guards are great in areas that
statistics don't cover! Intangibles, playoff 'clutch' play, etc. etc...
Tsk, tsk.
Ed O.
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
Don Moses <dmo...@rebus.dsd.ES.COM> wrote:
>Mr. Lor, I've asked this already but I must have missed your reply.
>Who do you think is the best point guard still playing. ie. this year?
Stockton.
Don Moses
>
>is not truth or fact. It's simply an OPINION in your camp without majority
>support.
>
>>Then again, so does the person counting!
>Do I have a big affect on polls? Wow, you get any evidence on that?
>
>--
> Edward Lor
> l...@mtdcc.ATT.COM
> AT&T Bell Labs
Mr. Lor, I've asked this already but I must have missed your reply.
Who do you think is the best point guard still playing. ie. this year?
Don Moses
Sunil Koswatta
>Mr. Lor, I've asked this already but I must have missed your reply.
>Who do you think is the best point guard still playing. ie. this year?
>Don Moses
IMHO, it is difficult to answer that question; at least not yet.
For example in the preseason polls, University of Florida was
ranked as the best college FB team in the nation. Few months
later a reletively unknown team at the preseason polling, i.e.
Penn State University, is at the top of the polls. In order to
answer your question objectively one has to wait till the end of
this year's season.
boparai sanji s
On 2 Nov 1994, Edward Ouellette wrote:
> >>>
> >> The last straw! The DT was a popularity contest! Can you tell me that
> >>Larry Bird was a better player than Joe Dumars, at that time? Just because
> >
> >Yes, I can...
> >
>
> Ah, Dave. Will you never learn? Piston guards are great in areas that
> statistics don't cover! Intangibles, playoff 'clutch' play, etc. etc...
> Tsk, tsk.
>
Come on! You could see for yourself that Bird could hardly walk. Or would
you only believe that if there was a stat for how many feet a player can walk!
Sanji
> Ed O.
>
>
Edward Ouellette
If he weren't hurt he would have been better, true. BUT he still was a _damn_
good player despite it all. If he put up those kind of numbers he could play
on his hands and with a blindfold for all I care; he was better than Dumars
in everything except defense.
Ed O.
Christopher Scott Campbell
boparai sanji s <bop...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> [good statistical analysis]
>
> (reply) You are relying on alot of misleading statistical evidence. If
>a team was created in 1990, for the purpose of assemblying the best
>players of that time, Bird would not be one the team. While qouting these
>stats, how can you ignore the fact that Bird could hardly get up and down
>the court? If the DT was a team of the greatest basketball players, who
>could actually go out and play with greatness, _while_ on_ the_ team_,
>Bird did not belong. Statistics are not the be all and end all.
> Sanji
>
>>
if a team was created in 1990, for the purpose of assemblying the best
players of that time....
sounds like the dream team to me. hey, chill out sanji, most
people figured that it was bird's swan song, but those stats
sure muddy any argument that dumars was *definitely* a better
player than larry, at that time.
i would say that considering his back i wouldn't have built a
brand new team around larry bird, but for those years i don't
think that i would have a problem with him playing for me.
chris
--
Christopher Scott Campbell * Laurie got offended that I
csca...@tuba.aix.calpoly.edu * used the word "puke." But
* to me that's what her dinner
ArchE and Math * tasted like. -- Jack Handey
Dave Meeks
>In article <1994Oct31.1...@vmark.com>,
>Dave Meeks <da...@vmark.com> wrote:
>>Don't try an be overly simplisitic. I guess if I came out and claimed
>>'Walter Bond is the greatest basketball player to ever play', you will be
>>unable to disprove this opinion, correct...
>Geez, you care to tell me how an opinion like this is incorrect? What do
>you mean by an incorrect opinion? And who's Walter Bond anyway?
Heh... go back to elementary basketball knowledge Ed...
>>>a) There are N people preferring Isiah over Stockton, and M people
>>> preferrning Stockton over Isiah
>>>b) N > M
>>Is this a definite 'fact'?
>Of course, the tally as of 10/31/94 is 36-18.
Is it?? I think not...
>>Funny that a large number of the 'names' you have
>>supporting your side I have never seen post anything about the subject.
>Funny, are you saying that the only facts in this world are the ones ***YOU
>HAVE SEEN***? Meek, if you choose to hide your head in the sand, it's not
>my problem.
Ahh... but instead, we should accept YOUR logging of the 'facts' as the
truth, right??
>
>>And, it seems that since you made this claim, many more people have come out
>>in 'support' of Stockton.
>And, you know what's so funny about this? Your "many more people" is countered
>by 2 times as many people coming out in support of Isiah. This is the tally
>on different dates:
>
>9/29/94 20-10, Isiah, posted in <CwwH4...@nntpa.cb.att.com>
>10/21/94 26-13, Isiah, posted in <Cy1K2...@nntpa.cb.att.com>
>10/31/94 36-18, Isiah
>
>Three people sent me e-mail on this subject. And you know what the tally
>is? 2-1, Isiah.
Well, 26 people have sent me e-mail on this subject...
New Talley 36-43 Stockton... deal with it...
>
>> b) All those people who create comparision listings such as the
>> Schick/Tendex/etc... formulas, and give out their awards based
>> on it.
>Yeh, the MVP voters not sharing it, or the Schick winner should be the MVP
>each year. Hey, he has the best stats. By your defintiion, he must be the best
>player.
Ahh... but there are two things to remember here...
1) No one has said stats are the ONLY thing...
2) MVP = Most Valuable Player NOT!!!!!!!!! Best Player..
Remember #2, as it is a very important factor here. The MVP Award does NOT,
and I repeat that for you... does NOT have to go to the BEST PLAYER. That's
why the award is NOT, I repeat for you, NOT called the MBP (Most Bestest
Player). The Schick award is an attempt to determine the BEST player...
>
>> c) The NBA, at least to a large degree, seems to value individual stats
>> very highly
>You get any facts on this? I see that the NBA, at least to a large degree,
>seems to value the playoffs more highly.
Yes, in a TEAM sense, that is true. But, if they don't worry about the
stats, why do they bother keeping them? Why are their leader's lists? And
why are their awards given to the leaders in various categories??
Hell, the world isn't black/white Ed... Having a large number of supporters
for a subject doesn't mean it has to be the majority. Valuing something does
not mean they have to value it higher than anything else. After all, it
seems the league values the NBA Finals more than anything else.. So why
bother with the rest of the season? And if they place so much value on the
NBA Finals, why do they have an MVP award that is solely based on the regular
season??
>
>>We have undeniable proof of this... the AllNBA selections.
>You have undeniable proof for better player in the regular season. You get
>any AllNBA selections in the playoffs? It seems like the playoff is a
>game disregarding all these allNBA selections and honors. I see all the
>accolates of Isiah in the playoffs, very few (except your Utah-Houston game
>4) of Stockton.
Ok... what 'accolades' does Isiah hold in the playoffs? He has the one
Finals MVP, but that's not the 'playoffs', but just a 7 game portion of them..
Anything else??
>
>>Stockton has been considered one of the top players in the league in each
>>of those seasons, whereas Isiah has not been.
>Isiah has got a playoff MVP during that span. Do you mean that the 1990
>post-season wasn't one of those seasons?
In 1981, Cedric Maxwell won the Finals MVP. In 76, JoJo White won it.
In 79, Dennis Johnson won it. In 89, Joe Dumars won it. In 88, James
Worthy won it.
Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, Bob Pettit, Bob Cousy, Dr. J, Walt Frazier,
Elvin Hayes, Bill Russell, etc.. they never won one... I guess then,
according to you, Cedric Maxwell is one of the AllTIme Greats... JoJoWhite
and DJ are easily just as good, if not much better, than Isiah. After all,
both have FInals MVP, and both have as many or more rings than Isiah.
jaz...@news.delphi.com
>>In article <1994Oct31.1...@vmark.com>,
>>Dave Meeks <da...@vmark.com> wrote:
>>>Don't try an be overly simplisitic. I guess if I came out and claimed
>>>'Walter Bond is the greatest basketball player to ever play', you will be
>>>unable to disprove this opinion, correct...
>>Geez, you care to tell me how an opinion like this is incorrect? What do
>>you mean by an incorrect opinion? And who's Walter Bond anyway?
>Heh... go back to elementary basketball knowledge Ed...
Not everybody is goipng to know who Walter Bond is, Dave (whether
or not they should know is another question). If I were to
question your basketball knowledge because U didn't know who
Anthony Mathis was, what would U say? Not everybody is going
to know every player...
Jazzy J
X Wing
>>Three people sent me e-mail on this subject. And you know what the tally
>>is? 2-1, Isiah.
>Well, 26 people have sent me e-mail on this subject...
>New Talley 36-43 Stockton... deal with it...
What's the problem? Lor has said he got the e- mail on the subject and would
post it if need be. If Meeks really has e-mail as well, then he can post his.
If the polls reflect new or old results then so be it. But really, I think this
trying to claim Lor is fabricating stuff is really not fair. He has stated what
he counted the votes to be on the net- if Meeks doesn't agree he IMHO has the
obligation to try to disprove Lor by maybe looking up the votes again b/c
the burden of proof lay on Meeks. This poll is months old for some of the
votes. If there were really such "accusations" about its integrity I think they
should have been brought up back then when it would have been easier to count
or discount them. This poll in any case is not some scientific one which can
provide definitive proof one way or the other on an issue like this- it just saysome portion of the people reaing this thread are influenced to like Thomas overStockton or vice versa and state their preferences openly.
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
You still haven't said what's an "incorrect opinion"?
>>Of course, the tally as of 10/31/94 is 36-18.
>Is it?? I think not...
what you think doesn't mean jack, since the evidence is here.
>Ahh... but instead, we should accept YOUR logging of the 'facts' as the
>truth, right??
Better do. Which article do you want to see? You are wimping out. Is
refusal to see the evidence you way to disprove the existence of evidence?
Besides, at least my logging of the facts have more credit that your yappign
"many more people have come out to support Stockton".
>Well, 26 people have sent me e-mail on this subject...
>New Talley 36-43 Stockton... deal with it...
Then you have the obligation to show them. Based on your dishonesty in previous
support (Floyd's support in Jan 1992). I don't believe you at all.
So go ahead, show all of them, or you lie.
>Ahh... but there are two things to remember here...
>1) No one has said stats are the ONLY thing...
Your cohort has said stats are the BEST thing.
>2) MVP = Most Valuable Player NOT!!!!!!!!! Best Player..
Then were did you get the Schick winner defined as BEST PLAYER? go ahead,
show it.
>Remember #2, as it is a very important factor here. The MVP Award does NOT,
>and I repeat that for you... does NOT have to go to the BEST PLAYER. That's
>why the award is NOT, I repeat for you, NOT called the MBP (Most Bestest
>Player). The Schick award is an attempt to determine the BEST player...
Really? where did you see it defined as "an attempt to determine the BEST
PLAYER"? I see the Schick award, in its description, as
Schick Pivotal Player Award, determined by Computer formula
Nope, don't see any any mention of "best".
>>You get any facts on this? I see that the NBA, at least to a large degree,
>>seems to value the playoffs more highly.
>Yes, in a TEAM sense, that is true. But, if they don't worry about the
>stats, why do they bother keeping them?
Just for geeks like you to play with and to form misconceptions ...
>Why are their leader's lists?
Who cares why? I don't see the league proclaim that player ability is ranked
according to that list.
Just yesterday, David Dupree of USA Today (at least he works for a national
paper, not the biased Boston media) said that
"Stats, stats, stats. They can tell almost any story you want them to tell"
and he proceed to rank the PGs. Blaylock was #1, Stockton #2. Are you going
to accept that?
>And why are their awards given to the leaders in various categories??
Geez, what's the award given to leaders in various categories? You care to
tell me what award Robinson or Rodman won last year?
>Hell, the world isn't black/white Ed... Having a large number of supporters
>for a subject doesn't mean it has to be the majority.
Oh, good. So you can value all you want, it just seems like your opinion
isn't shared by the majority. So you have nerves to spill facts/truths
on the net while they are only minority opinions.
>Valuing something does
>not mean they have to value it higher than anything else. After all, it
>seems the league values the NBA Finals more than anything else.. So why
>bother with the rest of the season?
Good question. Has it ever occurred to you that the regular season is a
buildup to the postseason?
> And if they place so much value on the
>NBA Finals, why do they have an MVP award that is solely based on the regular
>season??
Because they have another award for the postseason.
>Ok... what 'accolades' does Isiah hold in the playoffs? He has the one
>Finals MVP, but that's not the 'playoffs', but just a 7 game portion of them..
>Anything else??
That's at least one more than Stockton. That's better than Stockton's 27.3
ppg in a 3-game series while being swept, is it?
>In 1981, Cedric Maxwell won the Finals MVP. In 76, JoJo White won it.
>In 79, Dennis Johnson won it. In 89, Joe Dumars won it. In 88, James
>Worthy won it.
Wow, how come Stockton didn't win any. If he's such a great player, it's
hard to imagine he's never won even one ...
>Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, Bob Pettit, Bob Cousy, Dr. J, Walt Frazier,
>Elvin Hayes, Bill Russell, etc.. they never won one... I guess then,
>according to you, Cedric Maxwell is one of the AllTIme Greats...
Let's see. You made a claim
"Stockton has been considered one of the top players in the league in each
of those seasons, whereas Isiah has not been."
I guess winning the playoff MVP is certainly an antidote of "NOT one of the
top players in 1990".
Just for the record, you guess wrong. I don't thik Maxwell is an alltime
great. But I would consider him a top player in 1981, ditto for DJ, Dumars,
JoJo in their respective years. Now what?
>JoJoWhite and DJ are easily just as good, if not much better, than Isiah.
>After all, both have FInals MVP, and both have as many or more rings than Isiah.
Why do I care? The only thing I know is that Stockton is not as good as Isiah.
The playoff MVP is one strong piece of evidence.
Vijay Ramanujan
l...@mtdcr.mt.att.com writes:
>Why do I care? The only thing I know is that Stockton is not as good as
Isiah.
>The playoff MVP is one strong piece of evidence.
>
Is there anyone else out there who is just dumbfounded that this
conversation went on this long?
My God! This is ridiculous.
Stockton vs. Isiah
Their both great players - but not as great as they think they are or
their respective fans think they are.
Both are pricks.
(Did anyone see the way Isiah talked about why Jordan and Johnson were
better players? It was almost as if he was saying "I could have been
better than them, but I wanted to develop as a person. [i.e. they did
not.] Now they are losers off the court and I'm this great big stud and
I'm having the last laugh - aren't I?" As opposed to Stockton's equally
offensive comments at the olympics. I'm sure everyone remembers them.)
But to choose between them?
And who really believes that a fan vote will decide who is better? We all
know how ridiculous the all-star balloting is.
And awards? If they really went to the best players, Jordan would have
gotten MVP and best offensive player almost every year that he was in the
league, and these two others would be talking about who came in fourth
and who came in fifth.
(Oh, and did I mention I really hate both these guys, so this isn't
exactly unbiased.)
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
X Wing <r...@coos.dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>What's the problem? Lor has said he got the e- mail on the subject and would
>post it if need be. If Meeks really has e-mail as well, then he can post his.
Stockton. The way he did it, he would fabricate it.
Let's refresh Meek's dishonesty. In Jan 1993, he and I was engaging in a
flame war in football. He claimed that other netters support his viewpoint
against me, and ***confirm*** it. When pressed to show it, one netter's
support was an e-mail from Floyd Goodrich. When pressed to show the e
-mail, he wimped out. Why?
1) Because the e-mail from Floyd was from Oct. 1992. In Oct. 1992, how
could Floyd comfirm his support of Meek on an argument that's would happen
3 months later?
2) The e-mail from Floyd was on a completely different topic, and I got
the verification from Floyd.
Since then, whenever pressed on this issue, Meek will wimp out.
This is a sure-fire way to shut Meek up...
From now on, this 26 people's e-mail is just another one of Meek's
numerous lies over the years.
>If the polls reflect new or old results then so be it. But really, I think this
>trying to claim Lor is fabricating stuff is really not fair. He has stated what
>he counted the votes to be on the net- if Meeks doesn't agree he IMHO has the
>obligation to try to disprove Lor by maybe looking up the votes again b/c
>the burden of proof lay on Meeks. This poll is months old for some of the
>votes. If there were really such "accusations" about its integrity I think they
>should have been brought up back then when it would have been easier to count
>or discount them.
It's funny that someone who has a history of fabricating e-mail support
would question some else's integrity on e-mail support...
>This poll in any case is not some scientific one which can
>provide definitive proof one way or the other on an issue like this-
>it just saysome portion of the people reaing this thread are
>influenced to like Thomas overStockton or vice versa and state
>their preferences openly.
Exactly. I don't claim the tally as a 'poll', because that's only a collection
of opinions I collected on the subject. A lot of pro-Isiah netters claim
something like
"Stockton is a better PG, but Isiah is a better player", or
"Isiah has the ability to take over a game, Stockton does not", or
"two rings".
I mean, what do these opinions mean? I see them as a preference on Isiah/
rings. Of course, Meek would have been a sore loser and argue something
like
"Stockton is a better PG, this topic is about a better PG, so I get
the vote ..."
BTW, what trigger this posting of the fan opinions, from Meek's statement
on 9/19/94, in <1994Sep19.1...@vmark.com>, in reply to Craig Bowden.
Continue to think what you will, but it seems the majority of people who's
opinions we know, don't agree with you...
He never showed any tally, poster names or evidence, yet he had the nerve to
claim support from majority opinion.
And now he has to resort to "never seen the names supporting Isiah?"
Meek, form your own newsgroup. This newsgroup is not for your personal
propaganda or bluffing.
SIMON JAMES PALKO
DD DD II EE
DD DD II EE
DD DD II EEEE
DD DD II EE
DD DD II EE
DDDDDDD IIIIIIII EEEEEEEE /
/
TTTTTTTT HH HH RRRRRR EEEEEEEE AAAAA DDDDDDD
TT HH HH RR RR EE AA AA DD DD
TT HH HH RR RR EE AA AA DD DD
TT HHHHHHHH RRRRRR EEEE AAAAAAA DD DD
TT HH HH RR RR EE AA AA DD DD
TT HH HH RR RR EE AA AA DD DD
TT HH HH RR RR EEEEEEEE AA AA DDDDDDD /
/
DDDDDDD IIIIIIII EEEEEEEE !!
DD DD II EE !!
DD DD II EE !!
DD DD II EEEE !!
DD DD II EE !!
DD DD II EE
DDDDDDD IIIIIIII EEEEEEEE !!
Please?
--
__&__
/ \
| | Simon Palko (sjp...@engin.umich.edu)
| (o)(o) University of Michigan
C ,---_) GO BLUE!!!
| |,___|
| \__/ "I am Homer of the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance
/_____\ is futile. Preparation is futi...MMMmmm...doughnut!"
/_____/ \
boparai sanji s
On 4 Nov 1994, Edward Ouellette wrote:
>
> If he weren't hurt he would have been better, true. BUT he still was a _damn_
> good player despite it all. If he put up those kind of numbers he could play
> on his hands and with a blindfold for all I care; he was better than Dumars
> in everything except defense.
>
> Ed O.
>
Ed, I understand where your coming from. You followed Bird when he was
a god, and you still believe in his invincability. I might be the same
way with Micheal. But look at your logic, "even with blindfolds on."
Any numbers Bird put up previuosly mean nothing when you realize that he was
pyshically unable to play at the time. Dumars was a better choice than
Bird.
One thing: This discussion is void if we are talking about Ditka. Ditka
could rule the NBA with one leg and no arms.
Sanji
Dave Meeks
>In article <CyA7w...@tfs.com>, Tom <to...@tfs.com> wrote:
>> One question, which one makes a higher percentage of their shots?
>Simplistic people ask simplistic question and try to imply something out
>of it...
>
>One question, why is a player who makes such a high percentage of their
>shots only a 3rd/4th option in their offense?
>
>In 1988, Stockton shot .574, but took only 9.6 FGA/game.
>In 1989, Stockton shot .538, but took only 11.3 FGA/game.
>In 1994, Stockton shot .528, but took only 10.6 FGA/game.
>
>In each case, he's at least 3rd on the team in FGA.
In 1984-85, Player X shot .542, but took only 12.9 FGA/game
In 1985-86, Player X shot .549, but took only 11.9 FGA/game
In 1986-87, Player X shot .556, but took only 13.2 FGA/game
In each case, he's at BEST the 3rd on the team in FGA (he was 4th in 85-86).
I guess Robert Parish and all his rings was not a winner. He was only a
decoy on the offense, to keep the defense honest.
In 1983-84, Player Y shot .565, but took only 11.6 FGA/game (4th on the team)
In 1984-85, Player Y shot .561, but took only 11.7 FGA/game (4th on the team)
In 1985-86, Player Y shot .526, but only took 12.8 FGA/game (4th on the team)
I guess Magic Johnson and all his rings was not a winner. He was only a decoy
on the offense, to keep the defense honest. Instead of taking more shots,
he gave the ball up to guys like Wilkes, McAdoo, Scott, etc...
>
>The possible explanations:
>
>1) He's not a winner. If he really has that ability to shoot well, he should
>have taken the bulk of the shots to help the team. Instead, he would give
>up the ball to the likes of Griffith, Hansen, Chambers, Corbin, etc. In other
>words, he could keep his high FG%, while picking up a few assists from the
>poor shooters. The fact that Griffith and company missed a lot of FGs
>wouldn't reflect bad on Stock. Assist is only a stat culmulated only on
>successful FGs . He wouldn't be faulted for distributing the ball to
>players who misses a lot.
>
>2) If Stockton shoots so well only because he serves as a decoy of the
>offense, i.e. to keep the defense honest, then his shooting can't be compared
>to Isiah's, who has a completely different role. Let's see what Stockton
>can do when he's the #1 option and gets 15-20 FGA before we decide...
I guess we shouldn't compare Magic's shooting with Isiah's either... Oh wait
a minute... Magic scored more over his career AND shot a much higher FG%...
But, he was often as low as the teams 4th offensive option, didn't shoot
15-20 FGA each game, so he can't be compared... right...
Care to rephrase your criticism??? Or, at least be fair and comment on
how both Magic and Parish were 'not winners' and just 'offensive decoys'.
Take your pick Ed... either you have to apply the same criticism to Magic
Johnson, or admit your logic was stupid...
Edward Ouellette
boparai sanji s <bop...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> Ed, I understand where your coming from. You followed Bird when he was
>a god, and you still believe in his invincability. I might be the same
>way with Micheal. But look at your logic, "even with blindfolds on."
>Any numbers Bird put up previuosly mean nothing when you realize that he was
>pyshically unable to play at the time. Dumars was a better choice than
>Bird.
I dunno if you read the beggining of this thread, but someone (Meeks?)
posted the two players numbers for the couple seasons preceding DT. Bird
kicked Dumar's ass. No question.
I am _not_ basing my conclusion that Bird was better _in this period_ based
on Bird's previous accomplishments. My logic of Bird having a blindfold on
or whatever is that _despite_ whatever was wrong with him (back injury)
he _still_ was better than Dumars, and if he played blindfolded and put
up better numbers he would still be a better offensive player.
I did watch Bird a lot as a kid, and I knew he was good, but I didn't like
him. It was only later that I began to realize how good he was, so you
can't blame my opinion on a bias towards the Celtics.
Ed O.
Dave Meeks
>In article <39gkvj$j...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
>X Wing <r...@coos.dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>What's the problem? Lor has said he got the e- mail on the subject and would
>>post it if need be. If Meeks really has e-mail as well, then he can post his.
>I bet he won't be able to? He mention e-mail from 26 people supporting
>Stockton. The way he did it, he would fabricate it.
>
Actually, it was called sarcasm...
>
>1) Because the e-mail from Floyd was from Oct. 1992. In Oct. 1992, how
>could Floyd comfirm his support of Meek on an argument that's would happen
>3 months later?
Easy... because it related to the same subject. If I claim today that you
are an ass, and tomorrow someone says 'People think Ed is an ass, and I
have proof', could they or could they not use me as a reference? I would
think so... same with Floyd. Yes, it was written earlier, but it related
to the subject at hand..
>Since then, whenever pressed on this issue, Meek will wimp out.
>This is a sure-fire way to shut Meek up...
Guess by me speaking now, you are lying, right?? Not so sure-fire...
>
>From now on, this 26 people's e-mail is just another one of Meek's
>numerous lies over the years.
Yeah, but then, we've gone over this. If we count lies in the Ed Lor manner,
than this is one of Meek's numerous lies over the years... but that just
goes along with the numerous Ed Lor lies as well...
>Exactly. I don't claim the tally as a 'poll', because that's only a collection
>of opinions I collected on the subject. A lot of pro-Isiah netters claim
>something like
>
> "Stockton is a better PG, but Isiah is a better player", or
>
> "Isiah has the ability to take over a game, Stockton does not", or
>
> "two rings".
>
>I mean, what do these opinions mean? I see them as a preference on Isiah/
>rings. Of course, Meek would have been a sore loser and argue something
>like
So, 'ability to take over a game' == ' player is greater than other'??
So, if one player avgs 10ppg and shoots just 10% from the field for the
season, but has shown the ability to take over a game, he would be better
than a player that consistently scores 20ppg, but hasn't shown the ability
to take over a game??
And, 'two rings' == 'better player'?? Then, stupid theories or not, Dennis
Cedric Maxwell >> Karl Malone/David Robinson/Charles Barkley/Elgin Baylor,
right?? After all, not only did Cornbread win the rings, he was the playoff
MVP in 1981..
>BTW, what trigger this posting of the fan opinions, from Meek's statement
>on 9/19/94, in <1994Sep19.1...@vmark.com>, in reply to Craig Bowden.
>
> Continue to think what you will, but it seems the majority of people who's
> opinions we know, don't agree with you...
>
>He never showed any tally, poster names or evidence, yet he had the nerve to
>claim support from majority opinion.
I have 'never' showed any talley Ed??
How about :
>a) If "the people out there" mean fans in this country, who shared the opinion
>that Stockton is, careerwise, a better PG than Isiah? Is there any poll?
'...We have undeniable proof of this... the AllNBA selections.'
We also have the DT selections... We also have all those Fantasy leagues,
all those computer rankings systems, and other things... This is in addition
to the netters who have voiced their opinions...
And besides, what about the people who have come on to say things like
'Dream Team membership!'
You try and disclaim this as not being relevant, and then turn around and
inform Rick that 'If that's not the way how most fans evaluate players
(intangibles, clutch performance, less value on stats etc.), you just have to
live with it.'. Funny, perhaps this is just the way other fans evaluate
players, and you just have to live with it.
>
>Meek, form your own newsgroup. This newsgroup is not for your personal
>propaganda or bluffing.
Ed, go form your own newsgroup. This newsgroup is not for your personal
vendetta against me. If you feel trying to initiate a personal flame war
against me every chance you get is providing a useful contribution to this
newsgroup, I'd doubt you'd get much support...
boparai sanji s
use em for my benifit this time. What were Bird's stats during his Dream
Team tenure? I don't know them off-hand, but I'd guess that they will be
pretty anemic. Even though you would have no comparable stats for Dumars,
if Bird's stats are truly pathetic, logic may dictate that Dumars could
have put up better numbers.
Sanji
Craig Bowden
has been made out of a mole hill called IT VS JS.
Once upon a time...in a place not very far away (darn), there was a little town
called Nowin where a magic troll stood guard on the town's outskirts making sure
only the true could enter. To this troll came a horde of people professing the
great Stockton as the greatest PG while another horde brought forth the name of
the mighty Isiah. The troll scoffed at them all with one word - Magic - and the
hordes shrunk away. But the hordes wanted to enter the town so they came back
each professing that their PG was better than the other. The troll smiled and
drew out the great scale to weigh the matter for them.
The Stocktonites cheered and started piling stats, stats, and more stats on the
balance. Assist titles, steals, 1st and 2nd all-NBA's, all defensive teams, and
did I say stats? The scale thudded with a resounding thud to one side as the
crowd heckled the Zekers. Well, the Zekers started putting on Zeke's stats and
his all-NBAers and the scale started to move but not enough as the Stocktonites
jeered. As they added Zeke's more rebounds and points the scale still was pointed
in the direction of the Stocktonites who hooped and hollered. Then the Zekers
pulled out something that the Stocktonites had not ever seen - an NBA final MVP.
Then, more playoff wizardry and finaldom. The scale swayed, the troll smiled.
When the Zekers tried to put in Zeke's awesome 1988 finals where his team lost
the Stocktonites protested that shouldn't count, afterall he lost the same as
losing has been held against John and the Stocktonites all agreed. But the Zekers
asked, 'When did John ever have a game and series like that in a Conference final
or Final?' He didn't, it goes on and the scale was stuck - some said dead center
while the Stocktonites claimed it to be on their side. Of course the Zekers
claimed it to be on their side. The troll just smiled.
Then someone said, "Why don't they play eachother?" Yeah, Yeah they all shouted
and the magic troll waved his staff and a healthy John and Zeke appeared on a
basketball court and everyone sat down to watch. And the game began.
After twenty minutes Zeke led 43 to 20 when the Stocktonites protested - "Hey,
this is a team game. We concede Zeke can score more, but it's a team game. He
needs someone to pass to." So each side sent out their top supporter and Meeks
entered on John's side and Ed on Zeke's and they started playing 2 on 2.
It didn't take long before Meeks realized that since John couldn't handle Zeke
that he had to outscore Ed to make up for it. And all this extra switching over
to help, he was fouling a lot...hey, what you call this? Intangibles someone
yelled from the crowd. How do you measure this? Wins....especially playoffs. And
they cheered.
But wait, basketball is 5 on 5, this isn't fair. So each side put together a 5
man team and the game started. The game was tight all the way through when with
nearly all the time off the clock Zeke through away a pass that John intercepted.
"Ha, I knew I would see that!" the Stocktonites cheered. But John wouldn't take
the big shot as he passed into someone else who missed. A collective groan came
from their side but a cheer when they got the rebound. The ball is kicked back
out to John who....misses and the Zekers get the rebound and call timeout.
Everyone knows who's going to take the last shot and as they come back on the
court they focus on stopping Zeke. The ball is thrown in, Zeke gets by John, by
Meeks, gets sandwiched and makes the game winner at the buzzer.
"What was that?" the Stocktonites exclaimed. "Clutch shooting," came a shout from
the Zekers, "another intangible." "How do you measure that?" "Wins, especially in
big games." "AAaaaaaarrrrrrgh!!!" you could hear them scream and suddenly it was
chaos and both sides reverted back to the great scale to debate the matter since
a real game was never really played. And as they reached the troll he stood aside
and he boad them "Welcome, to Nowin City." And they entered and some still reside
there even today.
--
Craig Bowden
Chevron Information Technology Co.
1300 South Beach Blvd.
La Habra, CA 90631
p...@natasha.lahabra.chevron.com
Profs:HOVMB(pcb)
Voice:(310)694-7959
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
Dave Meeks <da...@vmark.com> wrote:
>>I bet he won't be able to? He mention e-mail from 26 people supporting
>>Stockton. The way he did it, he would fabricate it.
>Actually, it was called sarcasm...
>>1) Because the e-mail from Floyd was from Oct. 1992. In Oct. 1992, how
>>could Floyd comfirm his support of Meek on an argument that's would happen
>>3 months later?
>Easy... because it related to the same subject.
Did it? Another lie.
>If I claim today that you are an ass, and tomorrow someone says 'People
>think Ed is an ass, and I have proof', could they or could they not
>use me as a reference? I would think so... same with Floyd.
Nope, you didn't use Floyd as a reference. You claimed that Floyd CONFIRMED
it.
>Yes, it was written earlier, but it related to the subject at hand..
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh, you finally admitted it. Geez, finally learned from 3/2/93 when you
deleted the date of Floyd's article, huh? Let's look at your lie.
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 93 22:03:33 -0500
Original-From: merk!uvmark!davem (Dave Meeks)
The opinions were that, based on what you said, it was the opinion that you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
changed the rules in arguments. Not just this one, but others as well.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Whether you agree with other people's interpretation of the events is
irrelevant. We aren't asking whether or not YOU believe that you change the
rules. We could care less whether or not YOU believe it. It has, however,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
been confirmed by more than one other individual.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And then
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 93 14:48:06 -0500
Original-From: merk!uvmark!davem (Dave Meeks)
>>Whether you agree with other people's interpretation of the events is
>>rules. We could care less whether or not YOU believe it. It has, however,
>>been confirmed by more than one other individual. Therefore, as we have not
>>seen any opinion (except yours) to the contrary, it is held to be in the
>>realm of the "majority rules" by-law.
>1) Well, talk is cheap. Where is the "other" individual?
<9211021531.AA19715@iapetus.>. Floyd Goodrich.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This was an article in Nov, 92.
In Nov. 92, Floyd sent you an article to CONFIRM that I changed the rules
in argument? Notice, you did not use Floyd as a reference. You said that
it has been CONFIRMED by Floyd. Even if (big IF) Floyd sent you a message
in Nov. 1992 that I changed the rules in opinions, how did he CONFIRM that
opinion? If nothing else, you are plagiarizing Floyd's claim...
But wait, did Floyd really send you e-mail to confirm an opinion that
I changed the rules? Look at the article in question, which you sent me
in 3/2/93:
>Message-Id: <9211021531.AA19715@iapetus.>
>Subject: abusing ed lor
>In article <1992Nov2.0...@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> ed lor writes:
>>In article <1992Oct30.1...@uvmark.uucp> da...@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks)
>writes:
>>>>You care to show some evidence of "flamed people like crazy in another one
>>>>(newsgroup)"? I dare you!
>>>
>>>Yeah, over in rec.sport.football.pro, and in rec.sport.football.college.
>>Then you show NO evidence yet. What are the reference numbers of the articles
>>Show us.
>>
>>Can't wait to see them.
>Here's something I saved when ed was at it with John Gloria. It's a reply
>from John to ed so the entries with a > are by ed. It does have a reference
>number. It seems ed is spoiling for a good fight lately. If you
>choose to use this, go ahead. Personally, I think it's a chickenshit tactic
>to reply to your article "just before it expired" as he put it and demand
>evidence, when he knew damn well his articles in rsfp had already expired.
>But you know he'll argue endlessly about anything, so it might be rather
>pointless to start.
>Good Luck.
>Floyd Goodrich
Now tell us where Floyd mention anything about me "changing the rules in
arguments"? The point was that you deliberately deleted the date of
Floyd's article was a virtual admission of guilt. You knew all along that
Floyd wasn't supporting you on the "changing the rule" argument. And you
dared not show the date...
BTW, I asked Floyd rightaway on this subject.
From: floydg@iapetus. (Floyd Goodrich)
Message-Id: <9302101641.AA13141@iapetus.>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 10:41:45 CST
Since I can't tell if you're being sarcastic in this note, I'll explain.
Actually when I sent that to Meeks it was when you had demanded proof that
you were flaming people in newsgroups other than r.s.BASKETball.pro. He had
said he didn't save the articles. I was in 3 "discussions" with John Gloria
at the time and was saving anything he posted. John had quoted some articles
of yours since you were having the honor of educating John on another
thread around that same time. I wasn't sending that to Meeks in the context
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of your "changing arguments" as he calls it, rather I sent it in case he
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
wanted to use it to show you had flamed people in other newsgroups as you
had asked him to do. It was actually weeks or months before this SF vs.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Buffalo/changing-the-rules/wimping-out thread started.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, Meek, Floyd confirmed (now that's confirm) that he didn't support
you in the "changing argument" context. So Meek, you made two lies in
one argument:
1) Floyd confirmed his support on an opinion that Lor changed the rules.
2) Article <9302101641.AA13141@iapetus.> was about Ed Lor "changing the
rule" in arguments.
and now you have another one:
3) 26 people sent you e-mail to support Stockton.
>Guess by me speaking now, you are lying, right?? Not so sure-fire...
Well, I guess in order not to be shut up, you have to spill more lies...
>Yeah, but then, we've gone over this. If we count lies in the Ed Lor manner,
>than this is one of Meek's numerous lies over the years... but that just
>goes along with the numerous Ed Lor lies as well...
No problem, let's count it. Let's start with Floyd's article that you claim
as a confirmation, and the 26 people...
>So, 'ability to take over a game' == ' player is greater than other'??
>So, if one player avgs 10ppg and shoots just 10% from the field for the
>season, but has shown the ability to take over a game, he would be better
>than a player that consistently scores 20ppg, but hasn't shown the ability
>to take over a game??
Hey, this is also about which player you prefer. If Netter X prefer ability
to take over a game (i.e. player A), then tough. You have no right to
question why Netter X prefer him.
Then you have no evidence of your majority support.
>And, 'two rings' == 'better player'?? Then, stupid theories or not, Dennis
>Cedric Maxwell >> Karl Malone/David Robinson/Charles Barkley/Elgin Baylor,
>right?? After all, not only did Cornbread win the rings, he was the playoff
>MVP in 1981..
1) Nope, 'two rings' is what Justin Pak prefer to see on Isiah, as in
<36cl3q$k...@eis.wfunet.wfu.edu>
Coming from Michigan, I may be prejudiced, but Isiah is a whole lot
better (not now, obviously, but in his prime). Sure, Stockton's an
excellent player (averaging 1,000 assists for several seasons is nothing to
sneeze at). Yet, Isiah has two rings, and Stockton zip.
And how Craig Bowden replied to your BS in <18...@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com>:
|>He doesn't bring
|> much to the table. He is an excellent player and does certain things very
|> well. But others he doesn't do as well..
He doesn't bring much to the table...two rings. How many does John bring?
Isaih was MVP in the finals, was John?
If these netters think that Isiah's 2 rings are more important, you just have
to live with it. Yet they didn't claim that Maxwell's 2 rings are more
important vs Malone/Robinson/Barkley.
>I have 'never' showed any talley Ed??
Where are the tally that Stockton > Isiah overall? Hey, you weren't arguing
Stockton.91 vs Isiah.91, were you?
>How about :
>>a) If "the people out there" mean fans in this country, who shared the opinion
>>that Stockton is, careerwise, a better PG than Isiah? Is there any poll?
>
>'...We have undeniable proof of this... the AllNBA selections.'
Geez, allNBA selections in some particular years claimed that player A >
player B over a career? Then you have nerve to argue Malone vs Bird?
Hey, Malone was an all-NBA in 1991 and 92, Bird wasn't.
>We also have the DT selections...
DT seletions is the majority vote that player A > player B over a career?
Let's refresh your hypocrisy: McHale is not on the DT, Drexler and Pippen
were. Yet you claimed McHale as a Super-Echelon HOFer. Drexler and Pippen
marginal.
Nope, even you yourself don't use the DT to evaluate a career...
>And besides, what about the people who have come on to say things like
>'Dream Team membership!'
And who's that? "Dream Team membership", by Tom Burke. He was already
counted as one pro-Stockton voice. Or are you saying that just by
saying those 3 magic words, Tom Burke should be counted as 30 votes?
>You try and disclaim this as not being relevant, and then turn around and
>inform Rick that 'If that's not the way how most fans evaluate players
>(intangibles, clutch performance, less value on stats etc.), you just have to
>live with it.'. Funny, perhaps this is just the way other fans evaluate
>players, and you just have to live with it.
Funny, this is exactly the argument of which way other fans evaluate
players (overall, not just a season). And you try to disclaim 2 rings
and clutch performance as irrelevant, while you try to use seasonal
awards and accolades after the 1990-91 season as relevant...
>Ed, go form your own newsgroup. This newsgroup is not for your personal
>vendetta against me. If you feel trying to initiate a personal flame war
>against me every chance you get is providing a useful contribution to this
>newsgroup, I'd doubt you'd get much support...
Geez, I don't know about useful contribution. Are continued lies about
Floyd's support useful contribution to the group?