Why didn't Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan play for the redeeem team in 2008?

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14830440]as I said wins and losses aren't everything to me. Last years Jazz team was certainly much more joyful to watch(when The Bum wasn't on the floor of course) than Mitchell and The Bum iso and 3's for 48 minutes[/QUOTE]

people being fine with efficiently scoring less points than required to win the game is kind of my point, so I’ll thank you for making it. When it gets right down to it, people are complaining about a style even without much tangible evidence that opposing styles do more given similar talent. I’d be fine with it if people could just be real. All this winner and loser shit while ignoring almost everybody being losers just strikes me as weird.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;14830419]this is the other side of it, and it goes way way beyond Iverson. There is no particular style that consistently translates to winning. We just choose to ignore the many many people who play the styles you think lead to winning who never won anything. A bunch of names will no longer win international ball but traditionally, it is giving you a pretty good shot in the NBA.

and even the few people who manage to win without a team of the right names to a man spend their career mostly losing.

fans are just so convinced they know the game they ignore all evidence of what they say should win, mostly losing. It’s easy to say the style Russell Westbrook plays with doesn’t win and to assume the style John Stockton plate with would. But the fact is John Stockton was given an MVP caliber partner for about 15 years backed up with defensive players of the year and All-Stars taking a small roles to win and 20 points per game six men and great defenses or high power offenses and great coaching and did literally nothing Russell Westbrook didn’t. Lose in the first round with 55 win teams…61…fail all the time. Don’t hear a peep.

and every single one of these players be at Iverson or Westbrook or Carmelo or guys like Dominique before them have the same supposed purist talking about how they played, doesn’t win games while ignoring that plenty of time, they win more than people who play the “right way” do even one surrounded by talent.

Those players just aren’t polarizing so they escape all the criticism. There’s like 80-100 people in the hall who never get mentioned who never won shit. MVPs with high shooting percentages taking three All-Star teammates and losing in the first round. Don’t hear a word. But let Westbrook take a team that should’ve won 35 games and win 50 and lose in the first round with a poor shooting line you would think he was trying to invent a time machine travel back and kill Doctor Naismith with the damage people act like he’s doing the game.

Chris Mullin can lose with two other Hall of Famer’s in the first round. But we don’t talk about is his style was just not prone to winning. There are so many teams of people who play nothing like Allen Iverson who are loaded with talent and don’t accomplish as much in the playoffs is he did without these questions.

It’s not even playing the result. It’s extremely selective playing the result. People I would personally put three tiers ahead of Allen Iverson take better squads and win less and do so with less criticism.

you can put Steve Nash, Amare, Shawn Marion, and Joe Johnson on the same team and lose. You could put Moses Malone, Dr. J Charles Barkley Mo cheeks and Bobby Jones on one team and loose. Never hear about it. But Allen Iverson wins like 50 games with a lineup that should win 14 and wins a playoff series and nobody gives a ****.

entire topics on what his team didn’t do 15 or 20 years later, while in the same league two MVP, first ballot Hall of Famer’s are on the same team with two additional All-Stars and accomplished precisely dick.

when it gets right down to it, there are no results showing his supposedly cancerous style hurts teams any more than any other style. You just have to ignore the hundreds of times better teams with people Nothing like him fell apart. And people are entirely willing to do that. He switch his teams and the team he left wins like three more games with an different all star guard and gets eliminated later in the playoffs by the same team that eliminated him and there are topics about it. 15 years later. Steve Nash leaves a team that added a 6th man , and it immediately began the most successful run in franchise history with that much less talented core even making the finals

Like I said, it’s all really really selective because the narrative has to be framed to fit what we feeeeeel. Not what is.

Allen Iverson’s flashy shot jacking style is easy to criticize but the actual results are right in line with or above the results. Highly acclaimed players get with the kinds of teams he had. And that goes for the NBA or international. This is just another example of it. Allen Iverson’s cancerous style ruins the team then you replace him with two super efficient top 15 or so all time players in their primes one of them coming off winning the NBA title in dominating fashion, and finish the exact same place… both of them better than they finished with the squad full of all star before Allen Iverson was there.

The criticisms just make a lot more sense in theory then when you look at the actual results. There’s no more real world evidence Allen Iverson hurts teams than there is for 50 Hall of Famerswho don’t get that criticism. Guys like him are just easy to pick on in a time ”inefficiency”is the buzz word and groupthink has people afraid to stand away from the crowd.

Shitting on people like Allen Iverson is the easiest thing to do on a board full of people who have their opinions assigned to them by basketball reference. You think it through and start looking at the actual career accomplishments of a lot of people you don’t have shit to say about because their numbers don’t draw negative attention?

You’ll quickly realize how unfairly the criticism get spooned out over a certain type of player who traditionally doesn’t really do any worse than most people who get a pass.[/QUOTE]

I agree with your general premise. On some quantum physics shit. There's so many variables that go into an eventual outcome whether it be positive or negative. (from our perspective) Shit could go sideways a million different ways. For better or for worse. Could have Caleb Martin shooting you into the Finals or a Star missing everything. Life really is just a dice roll.

[QUOTE=tpols;14830481]I agree with your general premise. On some quantum physics shit. There's so many variables that go into an eventual outcome whether it be positive or negative. (from our perspective) Shit could go sideways a million different ways. For better or for worse. Could have Caleb Martin shooting you into the Finals or a Star missing everything. Life really is just a dice roll.[/QUOTE]


Finish opening that third eye and meet me on the astral plane

[IMG]https://s.imgfi.com/images/IMG_6233.gif[/IMG]




We have John wooden coming to talk about why big picture wise he wanted his team to commit more turnovers.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;14830486]Finish opening that third eye and meet me on the astral plane

[IMG]https://s.imgfi.com/images/IMG_6233.gif[/IMG]




We have John wooden coming to talk about why big picture wise he wanted his team to commit more turnovers.[/QUOTE]


:roll:

It's absurd how we all always want to be right.

I'm sick of it.

I’ve noticed the older I get the less I’m concerned about being right, but the more I’m concerned about people who think I’m wrong understanding why I think it. If someone understands how I got to the conclusion, I don’t care that much if they reach a different one. I’m less sure than I ever have been about almost all my basketball opinions. Everything seems to come down to “Well…maybe. I can’t say.” if I try to make a top 10 list right now both Dr. J and Steph might be in it but by Monday they will be 18 and 22. I’m becoming less and less confident in previous takes and just interested in understanding why people think the takes they have are correct.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;14830497]I’ve noticed the older I get the less I’m concerned about being right, but the more I’m concerned about people who think I’m wrong understanding why I think it. If someone understands how I got to the conclusion, I don’t care that much if they reach a different one. I’m less sure than I ever have been about almost all my basketball opinions. Everything seems to come down to “Well…maybe. I can’t say.” if I try to make a top 10 list right now both Dr. J and Steph might be in it but by Monday they will be 18 and 22. I’m becoming less and less confident in previous takes and just interested in understanding why people think the takes they have are correct.[/QUOTE]

Yea man... I know I come off as a know it all (and im trying to change) but I read your posts and learn from them even when I'm being combative.

I never cared about combative. I have friends I’m having arguments with about shit that happened in 1996. It’s not that serious but if it comes up even now, neither of us is going to bend the knee. Doesn’t mean if he calls and says three people about to jump him. I’m not on the way. I like to argue with people I can be my natural asshole self to without them taking me seriously enough to think I don’t like them as human beings. I don’t even respond to the people on here I don’t **** with.

It’s almost like a built-in filter. Once I determine someone is more troll than human and I can’t extract anything useful from them. It’s like they don’t exist to me so I’m on here with hundreds(probably dozens) of people but I only really talk to like 10. And all 10 probably think I have a vendetta when all it is is me having decided they are real enough that I might care what they have to say in response to whatever I might say.

It’s one reason trolls last so long without getting banned. I go right by without even reading whatever it is they say once ive decided I don’t need that perspective.

I have absolutely nothing to do with my days, but watch TV, work out, vacation, and have nice meals. I’m beginning to see why people retire and go back to work. I’m ****ing bored and I’m not even retirement age just far enough ahead I’ve taken like 2 years off at this point.

my girlfriend actually got a job after taking off two years with me, so I’m not moving around as much. Just staring at the walls of the house waiting for people to get off work. I joked about trying to intern for some NBA team, but I might actually go join the staff at Wofford up the road. My girlfriends grandfather has connections there and I’ve sat in on some things. Met coaches.

They probably have something I can do for free with one of the teams. I just need something to do other than watch games from 2002 and come ask what you all think of Jerry Stackhouse.

Long story short…I **** with people out of boredom to see if they might have something to say worth considering. It’s probably not personal. It’s just me being annoyed my favorite Korean wing place is in Dallas and I don’t feel like a 13 hour drive or flying so I’m just gonna be annoyed for a while.

And to make it worse I have arthritis in my wrist which ****s with my weight training so I’m stuck on the gotdamn treadmill.

I need to get a job. This post alone probably settled it. If I vanish just assume I’m a curiously old water boy and unpaid video scout for a college team you never heard of who is working me to death.

Why did Lebron win bronze medal with peak Duncan and Iverson and then with peak Wade, Dwight, Melo in FIBA?

[QUOTE=kawhileonard2;14830771]Why did Lebron win bronze medal with peak Duncan and Iverson and then with peak Wade, Dwight, Melo in FIBA?[/QUOTE]

That wasn’t peak LeBron, to be fair. Tim Duncan under performed in 2004, and they had bad coaching LeBron, still wasn’t peak version of himself in 2006, 2007, and 2008. They lost in 2006 because of pick and roll defense and a big fat tub of lard who took advantage of soft interior defense and they didn’t have a great perimeter defense yet it wasn’t until adding Kobe in 2007 that they became super dominant for the first time since 2003.