I can't stand KG now..

[dearwinter219]

I never said stats are the only way to measure a player. I said they are the only OBJECTIVE way to measure a player. I'm notgoing to get into arguing with people's feelings... I'm just not. I don't. It's useless. I guess I just have a lawyer's mind,that's all. I prefer hard facts.

 

[sincereone03]

Never questioned his intensity and the way he plays the game, but do it with class, not like a bum at the gym. All about hyping yourself up and your team, butdon't sit there on the bench in street clothes talking trash to the Bulls when you win the game. You were really quite for about the last 2 mins, then whenyou win you finally get big and bold. Just for that I hope the Bulls win the series.

 

[yungmatt]

Originally Posted by DearWinter219

If you weren't being sarcastic, then you're stupid. Which one is it Matt? As I recall T-mac won some scoring titles too. He wasn't the best player those years. Why? There's other stats. As I said, ranking players based on stats is the only objective measuring stick. Ranking players based on ONE stat.... is dumb. But go ahead, post your ONE stat comparison of Kobe and Stack in an attempt to take my statement out of context.

Im stupid then

It just makes no sense for me to argue with you about hoops... Your logic is flawed, trust me

 

[dearwinter219]

Then what is the purpose of statistics then?

 

[lb510]

Originally Posted by Koopa2410

punk. hate him.

Him and his up aganist the world BS

 

[fro b giant]

Originally Posted by DearWinter219

Originally Posted by dn0774

Originally Posted by DearWinter219

How is "Let the numbers do the talking" ever a ridiculous argument? I'm not the one arguing, the numbers are.

Respond to that smart +%*.

Since you love numbers and stats so much how about these?

Duncan: 4 rings
Garnett: 1 ring

Correction:
Spurs: 4 rings
Celtics: Do I have to go there?

Championships go to the whole team, not the star players.

Look man, I'ma help you out. I'm a lakers fan. If you're gonna try to "hurt my feelings" when you run out of counter points, at least say something I actually care about. Try a rape joke next time or something.

They may not go to the star player but you cannot say that the star player doesn't carry a team more than an average player.

Also

Spurs: 4 rings with TD
Celtics: 1 ring with KG

You can't give Garnett or anyone else on THIS Celtic team credit for the past championships. Teams do win them together as a team but a SPECIAL player willhave more impact on any given team, thus they get paid more.

 

[theblackhole76]

Originally Posted by DearWinter219

Then what is the purpose of statistics then?

In sports, the purpose of statics is for record-keeping and a general representation of what is being done on the court.

If you're asking from an argumentative perspective (i.e. why should we use statistics in our arguments), then sure, the purpose of statistics is indeed asyou claim - to provide an objective foothold to support some of arguments. It provides a non-biased way to evaluate certain tendencies and accomplishments inthe game. It helps remove the inherent biases we have when watching a game and helps support or refute some of the notions we hold onto as fans.

However, basketball is MUCH more than that. There are some sports that can be entirely reduced to statistics. For example, track-and-field pretty much livesand dies by statistics and records. Baseball, not to that level, but still can be heavily and appropriately quantified by a vast number of statistics. Thenature of certain sports makes pure objective analysis more valid than in some other sports.

Basketball, however, is a little different. Basketball, in my opinion, is probably the perfect harmony between the objective and subjective. (I've writtenthis argument before in a thread long ago, wish I had it lying around). The objective is needed to remove that bias, as you undoubtedly agree. However,basketball is ALSO played on another level. Concepts such as chemistry, emotion, leadership, momentum, and motivation play a very big part in the game. Each ofthose things shapes the game in a way that can't be quantified by our current statistical analyses. To remove that from discussion is losing a huge part ofthe essence of basketball itself. Unlike in other sports, the WAY you go about getting your numbers makes a difference. Getting 30 points by ballhogging isdifferent from getting 30 points in the flow of the offense. The way Allen Iversion gets 10 assists is vastly different from the way Steve Nash gets 10assists... and the way Stephon Marbury gets 10 assists. There are aspects of the game that cannot be quantified, andif they can be, we simply don't have the tools for it.

Again, it's not that they are worthless. You need both objective and subjective in any well-formed basketball argument. Having only one of either makes forvery weak arguments.

 

[dearwinter219]

AGAIN, I'm not discounting the subjective nature of roundball itself. I'm saying that you can't rightfully use subjection in an ARGUMENT aboutroundball. And that's what this is, an argument. So we should use objective reasoning. If you could, where would the line be? At what point is itunreasonable?

 

[Lizakers]

ya it always boggled my mind how the media and everybody loved and said he's such a good role model and stuff like that, when he constantly curses afterevery basket, foul call ,etc and millions of kids can read his lips on TV

he's fugazi

 

[ValarMorghulis]

Originally Posted by mrfantastic21

I totally agree with you.

used to be my man (pause)

 

[theblackhole76]

Originally Posted by DearWinter219

I'm saying that you can't rightfully use subjection in an ARGUMENT about roundball.

Why not? What is it about basketball that makes it not applicable to argue subjectively?

What aspect of anything is devoid of subjective analysis in a well-formed argument? Economics you would think is all about the numbers, but there is a lot oftheoretical subjectivity involved. History seems to just be about "the facts", but historical debate rages on and on and will continue to go on tilthe end of time.

Subjective is present in every argument or else it WOULDN'T be an argument! There are very few subjects in existence that are objective and inarguable...such as math or the hard sciences like physics and chemistry.

There is nothing inherent in basketball that makes it any less applicable to subjective analysis. And as I explained in my last post, there is a LOT ofsubjectivity in basketball -- much more than other sports. There IS a difference between arguing who's the best basketball player vs. who's the beststatistics generator. If you only want to discuss the latter, then you are in a completely different discussion than the rest of the sports world is.

It seems like you say that you can't (or shouldn't) argue subjective matters in basketball, but I can't even see why you would say that. Justsaying it doesn't make it true. What makes basketball any different from almost every other subject out there that is worth discussing? (since, as Imentioned, just about any other subject you could name has a heavy inclination towards subjective discussion)

 

[f a y b a n]

Another gem from Artest on Garnett

"Where's the fire when K.G. is down 20?" Artest declared in the first half of Game 4. "Watch how he goes back to huddle like a puppy.You're either a soldier all the time or you're not. You can't be a part-time soldier."

 

[jmause3]

Originally Posted by F A Y B A N

Another gem from Artest on Garnett

"Where's the fire when K.G. is down 20?" Artest declared in the first half of Game 4. "Watch how he goes back to huddle like a puppy. You're either a soldier all the time or you're not. You can't be a part-time soldier."

Ron is that dude

 

[scottsauce88]

Originally Posted by DearWinter219

If you weren't being sarcastic, then you're stupid. Which one is it Matt? As I recall T-mac won some scoring titles too. He wasn't the best player those years. Why? There's other stats. As I said, ranking players based on stats is the only objective measuring stick. Ranking players based on ONE stat.... is dumb. But go ahead, post your ONE stat comparison of Kobe and Stack in an attempt to take my statement out of context.

There are a lot of people out there who believe that Tmac was better than Kobe because of statistics. Yes, statistics are an OBJECTIVE measure, but the peoplewho interpret statistics are not. You can take the same exact stat and it will mean different things to two different people because of interpretations.

If you weren't being sarcastic, then you're stupid. Which one is it Matt? As I recall T-mac won some scoring titles too. He wasn't the best player those years. Why? There's other stats. As I said, ranking players based on stats is the only objective measuring stick. Ranking players based on ONE stat.... is dumb. But go ahead, post your ONE stat comparison of Kobe and Stack in an attempt to take my statement out of context.
his argument isnt dumb if you are taking just statistics into account.

The year he was talking about Stackhouse averaged 30ppg, 5.1 ast per game, and 3.9 rebounds a game while playing about the same amount as Kobe. Kobe averagedlike 28.5 ppg, 5 ast per game and 6 boards a game. Granted Kobe shot a better FG% and had less turnovers, but Stack also had a better 3 point % and moreblocks. So in conclusion stats are an Objective measure of player performances but they can be skewed just as much as people's personal feelings that youhate so much.

 

[dearwinter219]

^I can dig that.

 

[banks2pierce]

Originally Posted by jmause3

Originally Posted by F A Y B A N

Another gem from Artest on Garnett

"Where's the fire when K.G. is down 20?" Artest declared in the first half of Game 4. "Watch how he goes back to huddle like a puppy. You're either a soldier all the time or you're not. You can't be a part-time soldier."

Ron is that dude

How many titles he got? We seriously quoting an insane man? What's next? Mike Tyson's views on the climate change issue?

 

[dearwinter219]

Originally Posted by Banks2Pierce

Originally Posted by jmause3

Originally Posted by F A Y B A N

Another gem from Artest on Garnett

"Where's the fire when K.G. is down 20?" Artest declared in the first half of Game 4. "Watch how he goes back to huddle like a puppy. You're either a soldier all the time or you're not. You can't be a part-time soldier."

Ron is that dude

How many titles he got? We seriously quoting an insane man? What's next? Mike Tyson's views on the climate change issue?

Rasie your hand if you'd LOVE to hear what Mike has to say about climate issues...

 

[scottsauce88]

Originally Posted by Banks2Pierce

Originally Posted by jmause3

Originally Posted by F A Y B A N

Another gem from Artest on Garnett

"Where's the fire when K.G. is down 20?" Artest declared in the first half of Game 4. "Watch how he goes back to huddle like a puppy. You're either a soldier all the time or you're not. You can't be a part-time soldier."

Ron is that dude

How many titles he got? We seriously quoting an insane man? What's next? Mike Tyson's views on the climate change issue?

awesome..........I cant wait till the Celtics get knocked out of the playoffs.

 

[streethoopkilla]

dude is a millionare, NBA champ, MVP....who cares what he says or how he acts? just dont watch Celtics games end of story.....

 

[kingjay718]

I love him as a player, but yeah his act has gotten tired. I'll be happy when the C's get knocked out the playoffs.

 

[lobotomybeats]

 

[arrjae]

yea same!
espec. w/ his intensity making everyone think theyre tough!

ex. kendrick perkins, eddie house, davis....
i hate those guys, because theyre so cocky and think theyre the ishh!
meanwhile, obvi, they suck!

 

[cb94]

Originally Posted by arrjae

yea same!
espec. w/ his intensity making everyone think theyre tough!

ex. kendrick perkins, eddie house, davis....
i hate those guys, because theyre so cocky and think theyre the ishh!
meanwhile, obvi, they suck!

yeah, obvi they suck!

I see you...

 

[acbboyz84]

He's a soft $%@$ in a 6'11 body frame. He never pick on dudes his size. I would love to see him run his mouth on guy like Rasheed or Shag. Oh wait,that probably would never happen.

 

[craftsy21]

Originally Posted by Banks2Pierce

Originally Posted by jmause3

Originally Posted by F A Y B A N

Another gem from Artest on Garnett

"Where's the fire when K.G. is down 20?" Artest declared in the first half of Game 4. "Watch how he goes back to huddle like a puppy. You're either a soldier all the time or you're not. You can't be a part-time soldier."

Ron is that dude

How many titles he got? We seriously quoting an insane man? What's next? Mike Tyson's views on the climate change issue?

how long you gonna ride that one out? Dude is known as aperennial post-season failure his whole career until he FINALLY gets the right group of guys around him and wins a championship... now all his years of being apunchline are just supposed to be forgotten? Sorry - doesn't work that way. It's not a free pass to get a title one year and be a lame 15 others.