Last edited by sweabs; 08-08-2010 at 06:06 PM.
I said it a looong time ago but I'll ask it again. If it isn't important who starts, why do they bench players at the start of a game for violating a team rule? Why not bench them at the end of the game instead?
Get my drift?
If you get to thinkiní youíre a person of some influence, try orderiní somebody elseís dog around..
Ron needs to keep his hair grown out all next year. It makes him look like one crazy psycho killer. I want to know our win percentage with Ron's hair longish vs just shaved/short.
You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?
Artest scares me when its out. I would prefer it down.
Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.
Ron should keep it as a mini-fro, then die it Pacer gold/yellow That'd be funny. I'd get a kick out of it if he did.
Where's Blanket? His avatar is the perfect example of how Ronnie looks insane when his hair is all scraggly.
I think the Pacers should dye their hair dark blue for the playoffs. That'd be great.
You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?
That would be great.
It could be argued that benching at the start of the game makes a point while allowing the player to work his way back into the game for the final 3 qtrs (or whatever is left of the game when he is allowed off the bench).
Pulling the player instead from the 4th qtr could actually punish the team because it could hurt the flow and momentum (and normal rotation(s)) of the game with no time (or not much) to change gears and get things flowing smoothly again.
Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.
"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."
So... if it's more important to start than finish, is he saying that Reggie shouldn't be on the floor at the end of games?
- Log in. Even if you want to read instead of post, it's helpful because it lets you:
Enjoy your time at PD!
You guys are switching between two meanings of the phrase "more important".
Some of you are talking about what is more important as a sign of respect or and issue of pride. In this case, starting is more important than finishing as the starters are introduced at the opening, there is a record kept of games started, the starters are generally looked at as the primary players, and when striving to be in the NBA players want to attain the position of starter.
The rest of you are talking about what is more important in terms of recognizing a players value to a team and role in its success. In this case finishing is the more important role as when the clock is running out you want your best and most clutch performers out there when each possession and defensive stand means the most.
In the second case, what do players like Robert Horry who are definately not starters but are always out there in the clutch moments do to the argument that finishing is more important. Following that line of thought, is Robert Horry more important than say Manu as Horry is out there more at the end then Manu is? (It might not be the case that Manu isn't out at the end as much as Horry, I don't actually know, but if it is or were true, what does it say about the two and their roles?)