Well........ Spurs are champs again.....

On Jun 25, 11:50 am, "Glenn Greenstein"
<glen.jack....DeleteThis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> Noah, it is going to be impossible for me to debate anything I say with the
> way you are taking everything out of context. For example, I said in my
> reply, Curry is not doubled or tripled the way Ewing was. A lot of time he
> is going one on one. You totally ignored that part of the statement and
> solely focused on situations where he should be passing.

The entire focus of the discussion has been his passing and his
ability to kick the ball out in an inside outside scenario.
Absolutely one was talking about his one on one game.

It didn't take good teams long last year to figure out that simply
double teaming him shuts him down, and that the Knicks can't take
advantage because he can't get the ball back out to the open man that
the double leaves. What do you suggest? Simply cross your fingers
that they don't send a double at him?

> I also gave a full explanation of how I came to the more or less statement on
> 40%,

It didn't and doesn't hold water and I pointed out why. Your
contradiction in the middle of it that was pointed out was only the
most obvious example. This also doesn't hold up:

> you
> would realize my example of the 8 of 10 nights means there are nights your
> chances of winning a game on a long jumper are greater than 40%, but most
> nights, you are shooting more or less just that.

Now you're talking about winning a game and all sorts of other stuff
not terribly relevant to a season-long shooting percentage -- and you
accuse me of speaking out of context?

Whatever. I don't want to continue to go back and forth with you over
this stuff, Glenn. I've made my point. If you insist on interrupting
a discussion I'm having with Cap'n so you can argue that my point
wrong, at least back up your statements with some concrete, linear
evidence.
 >> Stay informed about: Well........ Spurs are champs again..... 

On Jun 25, 3:13 pm, "Glenn Greenstein" <glen.jack... DeleteThis @worldnet.att.net>
wrote:

> > It didn't and doesn't hold water and I pointed out why. Your
> > contradiction in the middle of it that was pointed out was only the
> > most obvious example. This also doesn't hold up:
>
> Pointed out what Noah? that you know how to spell "Um"?

No, and I'm tired of being asked to explain myself over and over
again. Read the above quoted text that you referenced, read the post
you referenced, and see if you can figure it out.

> YOU SAID YOURSELF THAT LIVING AND DYING BY LONG JUMP SHOTS ARE NOT A WAY TO
> WIN GAMES. MY POINT WAS YOU CAN WIN THEM LIKE THIS ON SOME NIGHTS AND IT
> SHOULDN'T BE DISCOUNTED OUT OF HAND THE WAY YOU DOING.

You have a really annoying habit of responding to a discussion of one
topic with arguments for another without really giving anyone a hint
that you have done so. We were talking about the real-world validity
of season-long shooting percentages for individuals and teams.
Somewhere in that discussion/rant you decided to make the switch to
discussing offensive philosophy, without giving anyone else any
warning. It's awfully hard to have a linear discussion like this. If
you can't stay on shooting percentages, can you at least put a
relevant quote above what you're discussing/responding to? Thanks.

There are two separate things being discussed:

1. Does the average of 82 games over a year accurately reflect a night-
to-night performance in a practical way;

and

2. Does making 3 pointers a central focal point of the offense make
sense in the big picture of season-long success and good team
basketball.

Please don't respond to a discussion of #1 with a retort about #2 and
vice versa. Thanks.

> I have given you evidence in the past and you choose to ignore
> it.

Such as? Where? All I ever hear are opinions, and ones that can
wildly vary and contradict one another in the same thread. I very
rarely get presented with any actual data, much less relevant data,
from you.

> Interrupt? Is that even possible on Usenet?

Yes.

> Forget this.

Done and done. I'd be happy to. If you'd stop posting how wrong I am
about everything, under all of my responses to other people in
conversations that have nothing to do with you, it'd certainly be
easier. But if you're going to continue to seek out to attack me, I'm
going to continue to defend myself.
 >> Stay informed about: Well........ Spurs are champs again..... 

"Noah" <dontsendmeyerspam.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1182792803.335442.142980@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 25, 11:50 am, "Glenn Greenstein"
> <glen.jack....TakeThisOut@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> Noah, it is going to be impossible for me to debate anything I say with
>> the
>> way you are taking everything out of context. For example, I said in my
>> reply, Curry is not doubled or tripled the way Ewing was. A lot of time
>> he
>> is going one on one. You totally ignored that part of the statement and
>> solely focused on situations where he should be passing.
>
> The entire focus of the discussion has been his passing and his
> ability to kick the ball out in an inside outside scenario.
> Absolutely one was talking about his one on one game.
>
> It didn't take good teams long last year to figure out that simply
> double teaming him shuts him down, and that the Knicks can't take
> advantage because he can't get the ball back out to the open man that
> the double leaves. What do you suggest? Simply cross your fingers
> that they don't send a double at him?
>
>> I also gave a full explanation of how I came to the more or less
>> statement on
>> 40%,
>
> It didn't and doesn't hold water and I pointed out why. Your
> contradiction in the middle of it that was pointed out was only the
> most obvious example. This also doesn't hold up:

Pointed out what Noah? that you know how to spell "Um"?

>> you
>> would realize my example of the 8 of 10 nights means there are nights
>> your
>> chances of winning a game on a long jumper are greater than 40%, but most
>> nights, you are shooting more or less just that.
>
> Now you're talking about winning a game and all sorts of other stuff
> not terribly relevant to a season-long shooting percentage -- and you
> accuse me of speaking out of context?

YOU SAID YOURSELF THAT LIVING AND DYING BY LONG JUMP SHOTS ARE NOT A WAY TO
WIN GAMES. MY POINT WAS YOU CAN WIN THEM LIKE THIS ON SOME NIGHTS AND IT
SHOULDN'T BE DISCOUNTED OUT OF HAND THE WAY YOU DOING.
>
> Whatever. I don't want to continue to go back and forth with you over
> this stuff, Glenn. I've made my point. If you insist on interrupting
> a discussion I'm having with Cap'n so you can argue that my point
> wrong, at least back up your statements with some concrete, linear
> evidence.

Forget this. I have given you evidence in the past and you choose to ignore
it.
Interrupt? Is that even possible on Usenet?
 >> Stay informed about: Well........ Spurs are champs again..... 

smacdo wrote:
> Yup. And a discussion of championships and HOF credentials doesn't
> work.

I'll add that MVP awards ARE a part of HOF and GOAT credentials and
that's exactly the problem I have with Nash having a 3rd.
 >> Stay informed about: Well........ Spurs are champs again..... 

On Jun 25, 5:37 pm, Noah <dontsendmeyers....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I think you're trying to analyze it for future historical effect as
> opposed to what it is -- simply giving the player who played the best
> that season the award.

More or less... Nash is definitely in the conversation each year for
the past three years but I don't give it to him every year based on
precedent. That's just me.

Part of the problem IMO is the award itself i.e. there's a regular
season MVP and a finals MVP but not one for the totality of it all.

This year: Nash/Dirk gets the regular season MVP, Tony Parker gets the
finals MVP... and Duncan is simply the best bar none.
 >> Stay informed about: Well........ Spurs are champs again..... 

Noah wrote:
o? Thanks.
>
> There are two separate things being discussed:
>
> 1. Does the average of 82 games over a year accurately reflect a night-
> to-night performance in a practical way;

Yes.


>
> and
>
> 2. Does making 3 pointers a central focal point of the offense make
> sense in the big picture of season-long success and good team
> basketball.
>

No.
 >> Stay informed about: Well........ Spurs are champs again..... 

On Jun 25, 5:37 pm, Noah <dontsendmeyers....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Simply put, I think that Nash is the best point guard of his
> generation (with the only other argument I could think of being Kidd)
> and probably the best since Magic's heyday, period. You, of course,
> are most welcome to disagree.

Above Stockton? I'm just asking here. I have a hard time comparing
them since their games are so different. I would probably rate
Stockton as the better _player_ and Nash as the better point guard
since Stockton was very good at both ends but a less dynamic
distributor.

Also, though I think Nash is easily a better player now, I'm a big fan
of Cassell's game - over the course of his career he has always been a
key part of winning teams and suddenly players around him (Hakeem,
Brand, Ray Allen + Big Dawg, KG) are able to get to another level when
he arrives. When we look back on the respective careers of Cassell and
Nash does Nash make the Hall because of the MVPs and Cassell not? With
his playoff/reg season success and solid career stats, I would hope he
would be at least in the conversation with Kidd for best PG of his
generation even though he never had as dominant a season as either.
 >> Stay informed about: Well........ Spurs are champs again..... 

"Noah" <dontsendmeyerspam RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1182816048.738378.33140@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 25, 3:13 pm, "Glenn Greenstein" <glen.jack... RemoveThis @worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
>> > It didn't and doesn't hold water and I pointed out why. Your
>> > contradiction in the middle of it that was pointed out was only the
>> > most obvious example. This also doesn't hold up:
>>
>> Pointed out what Noah? that you know how to spell "Um"?
>
> No, and I'm tired of being asked to explain myself over and over
> again. Read the above quoted text that you referenced, read the post
> you referenced, and see if you can figure it out.
>
>> YOU SAID YOURSELF THAT LIVING AND DYING BY LONG JUMP SHOTS ARE NOT A WAY
>> TO
>> WIN GAMES. MY POINT WAS YOU CAN WIN THEM LIKE THIS ON SOME NIGHTS AND IT
>> SHOULDN'T BE DISCOUNTED OUT OF HAND THE WAY YOU DOING.
>
> You have a really annoying habit of responding to a discussion of one
> topic with arguments for another without really giving anyone a hint
> that you have done so. We were talking about the real-world validity
> of season-long shooting percentages for individuals and teams.
> Somewhere in that discussion/rant you decided to make the switch to
> discussing offensive philosophy, without giving anyone else any
> warning. It's awfully hard to have a linear discussion like this. If
> you can't stay on shooting percentages, can you at least put a
> relevant quote above what you're discussing/responding to? Thanks.
>
> There are two separate things being discussed:
>
> 1. Does the average of 82 games over a year accurately reflect a night-
> to-night performance in a practical way;
>
> and
>
> 2. Does making 3 pointers a central focal point of the offense make
> sense in the big picture of season-long success and good team
> basketball.
>
> Please don't respond to a discussion of #1 with a retort about #2 and
> vice versa. Thanks.
>
>> I have given you evidence in the past and you choose to ignore
>> it.
>
> Such as? Where? All I ever hear are opinions, and ones that can
> wildly vary and contradict one another in the same thread. I very
> rarely get presented with any actual data, much less relevant data,
> from you.
>
>> Interrupt? Is that even possible on Usenet?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Forget this.
>
> Done and done. I'd be happy to. If you'd stop posting how wrong I am
> about everything, under all of my responses to other people in
> conversations that have nothing to do with you, it'd certainly be
> easier. But if you're going to continue to seek out to attack me, I'm
> going to continue to defend myself.
>
Attack? Damn, you must really hate me. I'll just leave you alone for now on
Noah, but feel free to continue to jump in and attack everything I write
about as you have so often done.
 >> Stay informed about: Well........ Spurs are champs again..... 

On Jun 26, 12:28 pm, Capn'O <dan.zin... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:

> Above Stockton? I'm just asking here.

Yeah, if only because Stockton, as amazing as he was, required one of
the best PFs in history to play alongside him in order to do what made
him famous. Would Stockton have been nearly as good without Malone?
He would still have been great, but that great?

Nash, on the other hand, finds ways to score in bunches with guys like
Eddie House, Boris Diaw, James Jones etc. It doesn't seem to matter
who his teammates are. He just makes everyone better. His speed,
court vision, unselfishness (for a guy who, unlike Kidd, can actually
score 20 or 30 just about anytime he wants) and creativity are pretty
unheralded. I think his abilities even surpass Kidd's (and I do think
really highly of Kidd) and I think you really have to go back to Magic
(who had Kareem and James Worthy to help) to see something similar.

> Also, though I think Nash is easily a better player now, I'm a big fan
> of Cassell's game - over the course of his career he has always been a
> key part of winning teams and suddenly players around him (Hakeem,
> Brand, Ray Allen + Big Dawg, KG) are able to get to another level when
> he arrives.

I guess. Cassell's always been a solid player, but he's never really
been on the Stockton/Kidd/Nash level to me. Note that other than the
Rockets, who were a well-constructed team to begin with, the guys you
mention are all supreme talents who had previously been playing on ill-
conceived rosters. KG, Allen, Brand (I'm not going to bother with
"Big Dawg") -- these guys all found Cassell when they'd been
previously stumbling with incompetent point guards. It's one thing to
play competently and be able to get your star to rise up. It's quite
another when you're able to actually be the star by getting absolutely
everybody around you to rise up, and that's what makes Nash and Kidd
so very special (and very valuable).

> When we look back on the respective careers of Cassell and
> Nash does Nash make the Hall because of the MVPs and Cassell not?

No, for the aforementioned reasons, not the MVPs. Cassell may have
helped stars, but Nash created stars.
 >> Stay informed about: Well........ Spurs are champs again..... 

On Jun 27, 6:52 am, Noah <dontsendmeyers... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 12:28 pm, Capn'O <dan.zin... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Above Stockton? I'm just asking here.
>
> Yeah, if only because Stockton, as amazing as he was, required one of
> the best PFs in history to play alongside him in order to do what made
> him famous. Would Stockton have been nearly as good without Malone?
> He would still have been great, but that great?
>
> Nash, on the other hand, finds ways to score in bunches with guys like
> Eddie House, Boris Diaw, James Jones etc. It doesn't seem to matter
> who his teammates are. He just makes everyone better. His speed,
> court vision, unselfishness (for a guy who, unlike Kidd, can actually
> score 20 or 30 just about anytime he wants) and creativity are pretty
> unheralded. I think his abilities even surpass Kidd's (and I do think
> really highly of Kidd) and I think you really have to go back to Magic
> (who had Kareem and James Worthy to help) to see something similar.

I agree with this which is why I make the player/pg distinction _at
this time_. Stockton didn't create like Nash but he put the ball in
the right place at the right time a LOT (which of course Nash does
too) and that and his GREAT defense would have made him great
anywhere, Malone notwithstanding (remember, he helped make Shandon
Anderson look good :) ).

I'm pretty amped about the rumors that KG might go to Phoenix. I'd
like to see what Nash does with a cast that should make/(hence)win
finals. I.e. we all know he is the best at making marginal talent
(plus Amare and Marion) very good -> great but can he make great
players champions??? I'd like to see it - and I think having a player
of the caliber of Garnett would create a level playing field to at
least compare him with Stockton.
 >> Stay informed about: Well........ Spurs are champs again..... 

On Jun 27, 4:02 pm, Capn'O <dan.zin... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:

> The thought of him going Latrell on Steph is too good to pass up on
> though.

I don't get it. Are you talking about Marion? Was there beef between
them when Steph was in Phoenix?

> And geez, looking at Hoopshype if I were them I'd be looking
> to jettison Diaw right now. I hope he at least got Steve a good
> birthday present or something.

I'm quite sure that's an official Hoopshype "Oops" as opposed to an
actual contract.
 >> Stay informed about: Well........ Spurs are champs again..... 

On Jun 28, 8:07 am, "Glenn Greenstein" <glen.jack....RemoveThis@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:

> Careful Lee. Noah doesn't like to be interrupted.

Not in interruptions whose purpose is only to tell me how wrong I am,
in indecipherable rambling posts responding to arguments in a random,
logic-free, non-linear way instead of addressing the post in question,
no. I'm also not fond of trollish argument-baiting like this. Lee,
to my knowledge, has never been guilty of either charge, though..

I thought you were going to leave me alone?
 >> Stay informed about: Well........ Spurs are champs again..... 

On Jun 28, 3:27 pm, "Glenn Greenstein" <glen.jack....TakeThisOut@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:

> >> Careful Lee. Noah doesn't like to be interrupted.

<snip>

> I wasn't talking to you.

No, just about me. For the second time today.
 >> Stay informed about: Well........ Spurs are champs again.....