Page 30 of 36 FirstFirst ... 20262728293031323334 ... LastLast
Results 726 to 750 of 889

Thread: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

  1. #726
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heisenberg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    which indeed happened!

    JOB made the best thing in a decade happen to the Pacers. READY! GO!
    I feel like I ought to write him a thank you letter.

  2. #727
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by McKeyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yes, but we don't go the "fact machine" and enter all the paper and wait for the machine to tell us if certain documents are good facts or persuasive facts. The jury makes that decision. It's not science. It's intuition.
    The jury is supposed to make a decision solely based on the evidence provided. If there is conflicting evidence without other evidence backing up one piece of the evidence more than the other, the jury is supposed to declare the person not guilty. It is supposed to be scientific and fact based. The fact that it doesn't always work as the ideal states it should, doesn't change the fact that we have a system based on facts not on intuition. The jury is supposed to work as that fact machine. Humans are just as capable of being fact based and scientific as a computer. The law requires a jury to be fact based. The system being flawed doesn't change what it is.

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Eleazar For This Useful Post:


  4. #728
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,085

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But judges can overturn it.
    Judges are also humans. They use their "judgment", their intuition, to make the final decision. The case is not handed to a computer or a "verdict machine."
    Last edited by McKeyFan; 11-04-2013 at 04:25 PM.
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “People talk about how quiet he [McKey] is, but he’s really been helpful. He gives a lot of insight to players in how to guard certain teams and what their weaknesses are. The whole team listens to him, and it makes my job a lot easier. Having players like him is what pro basketball is all about for me.” —Larry Brown

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to McKeyFan For This Useful Post:


  6. #729
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You can make whatever analogy you want, just like I can make whatever analogy I want. No single poster gets to decide what analogy is to be used in a discussion. A jury is very much related to the work of a lawyer and detective, since convincing a jury is often the endgame to the work of either of those parties. McKeyfan simply took Hicks' analogy and expanded on it. You're acting as if McKeyfan changed the topic to unicorns and baby seals.
    Anytime since86 loses an argument he acuses the other side of "changing the argument" or "moving the goal post" this is nothing new.

  7. #730
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by McKeyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I can see now why bringing up jurors is irrelevant. Detectives recreate crime scenes for fun! It has nothing to do with a guilty or innocent verdict.



    Here's what Hicks said:

    Now, I could swear a form of the word "guilt" is in that sentence.
    Dude, there is never even a jury involved if the facts gathered by the detectives and the prosecutor can't convince the prosecutor to file charges. And not every case is ultimately decided by a jury. Sometimes it's just a judge. Sometimes there's a plea agreement. And this is all so past the point of making the metaphor to begin with it's ridiculous.

  8. #731
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,690

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Pretty simple, we want the bench to be a "super bench" so moving the much better player(Danny "more efficient than Kobe Bryant" Granger) to the starting unit makes the bench more amazing
    Wouldn't moving the Lance ( the better Player ) to the bench make it more "amazing"?

    or

    Would moving Granger ( the lesser Player ) to the bench make it more "amazing"?

    Before you answer that....let's focus solely on your post regarding moving Lance to the bench and not the impact that it would have to the Starting Lineup ( something that many of us recognize as a price that we'd be willing to pay to make Lance the 6th Man so that he can improve the offense in the 2nd unit and therefore the improvement of the Team overall as opposed to simply improving the Starting Lineup ).

    In other words....wouldn't moving the "better Player" ( who you clearly acknowledge as Lance ) as opposed to the "lesser" Player improve the performance of the bench?

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    it's called the trickle down effect, plus we know that Lance is coming down to earth like a meteor making the bench even better.
    I assume you are referring to mattie's post on this:

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I said it. (I was the only one).

    I don't think Lance after 3 games (tho it was after 2 games at the time) has proven that he's a 19ppg scorer yet. I think he's had a fantastic start to the season. But, I'll wait to see if he keeps it up before crowning him the next Pacers all-star. Seems fair enough?
    But he was referring to Lance being an All-Star this year...which someone was posting that he could become this season...which ( obviously ) is a matter of opinion at this point BECAUSE he isn't an All-Star yet.

    But outside of mattie's post...which doesn't really suggest that "he will come down to Earth" but that he hasn't proved himself to be an All-Star yet.....who says that Lance be "coming down to Earth"?

    Find me one person that does not support your view in this whole discussion....much less anyone her on PD...that thinks that Lance is outperforming his actual talent, he has plateaued and that his performance is going to level off to his regular level of production over the course of the year or his career.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to CableKC For This Useful Post:


  10. #732
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,123

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo;1727931[U
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    McKeyfan simply took Hicks' analogy and expanded on it[/U]. You're acting as if McKeyfan changed the topic to unicorns and baby seals.

    Agreed, just like you took mattie's post about Danny being more efficient, and tried expanding on it to mean that Danny was better MJ, and that Brent Barry was better than MJ, LeBron, Dirk, Larry. I get expanding it, but the topic what about what lawyers/detectives do with evidence, NOT what jurys do with evidence. They have two completely different set of standards, as the saying goes with detectives/laywers, which doesn't apply to a jury, "it's not what you think you know, but what you can prove." Meaning, your feelings (intution) isn't not admissible in a court of law, only evidence is.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:


  12. #733
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,085

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleazar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The jury is supposed to make a decision solely based on the evidence provided. If there is conflicting evidence without other evidence backing up one piece of the evidence more than the other, the jury is supposed to declare the person not guilty. It is supposed to be scientific and fact based. The fact that it doesn't always work as the ideal states it should, doesn't change the fact that we have a system based on facts not on intuition. The jury is supposed to work as that fact machine. Humans are just as capable of being fact based and scientific as a computer. The law requires a jury to be fact based. The system being flawed doesn't change what it is.
    You guys are killing me.

    Both sides submit all kinds of "evidence." A jury of people of good character are chosen to be the final arbiters, because a contested case can't be decided on simply selecting the evidence. There is always conflicting evidence. So . . . a person, or a group of persons has to make a JUDGMENT, a "judgment call," an intuition, in your gut kind of decision to figure out which one of the attorneys is submitting inferior evidence. The fact machine doesn't tell us that.
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “People talk about how quiet he [McKey] is, but he’s really been helpful. He gives a lot of insight to players in how to guard certain teams and what their weaknesses are. The whole team listens to him, and it makes my job a lot easier. Having players like him is what pro basketball is all about for me.” —Larry Brown

  13. #734
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,041

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by McKeyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Right. It would be difficult to statistically measure how often Granger shoots early in the shot clock, how often he shoots when defended rather than dishing off, etc.
    With the new SportsVU cameras I think that this is quite possible.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Nuntius For This Useful Post:


  15. #735
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by McKeyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Judges are also humans. They use their "judgment", the intuition, to make the final decision. The case is not handed to a computer or a "verdict machine."
    As has been said, everybody uses intuition. There is absolutely nothing special about trumpeting one's use of intuition. The point is it's responsible and intellectual to back up intuition by cross referencing it with all available facts. Is there some part of this that doesn't make sense?

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:


  17. #736
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,123

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by McKeyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I can see now why bringing up jurors is irrelevant. Detectives recreate crime scenes for fun! It has nothing to do with a guilty or innocent verdict.



    Here's what Hicks said:

    Now, I could swear a form of the word "guilt" is in that sentence.
    Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant guilty in reference to a jury, not their own personal opinion. Like my post to Sollozzo says about the famous quote lawyers/detectives go with "it's not what you think you know, but what you can prove" meaning that they can't dabble with intuition, they have to go with evidence that can be presented.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  18. #737
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,085

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleazar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Humans are just as capable of being fact based and scientific as a computer.
    They are more capable. Way more capable. That's the whole point.
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “People talk about how quiet he [McKey] is, but he’s really been helpful. He gives a lot of insight to players in how to guard certain teams and what their weaknesses are. The whole team listens to him, and it makes my job a lot easier. Having players like him is what pro basketball is all about for me.” —Larry Brown

  19. #738
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Agreed, just like you took mattie's post about Danny being more efficient, and tried expanding on it to mean that Danny was better MJ, and that Brent Barry was better than MJ, LeBron, Dirk, Larry. I get expanding it, but the topic what about what lawyers/detectives do with evidence, NOT what jurys do with evidence. They have two completely different set of standards, as the saying goes with detectives/laywers, which doesn't apply to a jury, "it's not what you think you know, but what you can prove." Meaning, your feelings (intution) isn't not admissible in a court of law, only evidence is.
    Thank you!

  20. #739
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,123

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Anytime since86 loses an argument he acuses the other side of "changing the argument" or "moving the goal post" this is nothing new.
    Rich, coming from the guy who claims to have told everyone that he predicted Danny's knee injury and can't back it up with a single post in the past 5 years.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:


  22. #740
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,041

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacergeek View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It is hilarious. Pacer fans assuming that Lance had plateaued last year and couldn't possibly improve. Now that we have evidence that he has improved significantly, let's still expect a drop off
    No one is assuming that Lance has plateaued. He is definitely on the rise and one of the key players of our team.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  23. #741
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by McKeyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    They are more capable. Way more capable. That's the whole point.
    Name one person here who has said that we should just let a bunch of computers tell us who is right and who's wrong. Name one.

  24. #742
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,085

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    As has been said, everybody uses intuition. There is absolutely nothing special about trumpeting one's use of intuition. The point is it's responsible and intellectual to back up intuition by cross referencing it with all available facts. Is there some part of this that doesn't make sense?
    I can go with that. My point is that Intuition is greater than science/stats. Ultimately. But they're both important.
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “People talk about how quiet he [McKey] is, but he’s really been helpful. He gives a lot of insight to players in how to guard certain teams and what their weaknesses are. The whole team listens to him, and it makes my job a lot easier. Having players like him is what pro basketball is all about for me.” —Larry Brown

  25. #743
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,827

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Agreed, just like you took mattie's post about Danny being more efficient, and tried expanding on it to mean that Danny was better MJ, and that Brent Barry was better than MJ, LeBron, Dirk, Larry. I get expanding it, but the topic what about what lawyers/detectives do with evidence, NOT what jurys do with evidence. They have two completely different set of standards, as the saying goes with detectives/laywers, which doesn't apply to a jury, "it's not what you think you know, but what you can prove." Meaning, your feelings (intution) isn't not admissible in a court of law, only evidence is.

    In post 505, Mattie used the fact that Danny was a more efficient scorer than Kobe Bryant as reason that he still thought Danny should still start over Lance (at least that's the way I read his post). My sarcastic comment about Brent Barry and Michael Jordan was a sarcastic way of illustrating that the efficiency stat didn't necessarily illustrate who would be the better fit in the starting lineup between Lance and Danny. Had I known that you would still be obsessing about it 15 hours after the fact, I probably wouldn't have made it.

    I never told mattie what he could and couldn't say though. I just said what I wanted to say.

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sollozzo For This Useful Post:


  27. #744
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,041

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacergeek View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Hate to say it, but I have been backed into a corner.
    The victim card? Really?
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to Nuntius For This Useful Post:


  29. #745
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Wouldn't moving the Lance ( the better Player ) to the bench make it more "amazing"?

    or

    Would moving Granger ( the lesser Player ) to the bench make it more "amazing"?

    Before you answer that....let's focus solely on your post regarding moving Lance to the bench and not the impact that it would have to the Starting Lineup ( something that many of us recognize as a price that we'd be willing to pay to make Lance the 6th Man so that he can improve the offense in the 2nd unit and therefore the improvement of the Team overall as opposed to simply improving the Starting Lineup ).

    In other words....wouldn't moving the "better Player" ( who you clearly acknowledge as Lance ) as opposed to the "lesser" Player improve the performance of the bench?


    I assume you are referring to mattie's post on this:



    But he was referring to Lance being an All-Star this year...which someone was posting that he could become this season...which ( obviously ) is a matter of opinion at this point BECAUSE he isn't an All-Star yet.

    But outside of mattie's post...which doesn't really suggest that "he will come down to Earth" but that he hasn't proved himself to be an All-Star yet.....who says that Lance be "coming down to Earth"?

    Find me one person that does not support your view in this whole discussion....much less anyone her on PD...that thinks that Lance is outperforming his actual talent, he has plateaued and that his performance is going to level off to his regular level of production over the course of the year or his career.
    CableKC this argument has never been with you I believe what you are trying to sell me the thing is that I don't believe your other supporters, I believe some people have hidden agendas that they are trying to push because they were proven wrong and because they have a mancrush on a player.

    And regarding my comments I look at it this way, some people still think Danny is the better player, some like Eleazar go as far as to tell us that DG needs to come back so he becomes the number one option again so we don't have to pay Paul George that much.

    So I'm thinking if this posters really believe Danny is the best player why in hell are they saying that moving the lesser player in Lance to the bench makes the bench better? are you seeing the contradictions here?

    And yes some people are expecting Lance to come back to earth or come back to what they predicted.

  30. #746
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,690

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleazar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    At this time there is no evidence to suggest one line-up is better than the other. It very well could end up being GH, PG, West, Hibbert, and Granger is the best line-up.
    I am willing to concede that the best Lineup that the Pacers have is GH/Lance/Granger/West/Hibbert ( compared to having Granger in the Starting Lineup ) due to Granger's injury concerns, lack of playing time over the last year and overall familiarity with the rest of the Starters. I acknowledge that there will be some "growing pains" if Granger is inserted back into the Starting Lineup....I just hope that if that happens...that it is short-lived.

    However, that doesn't change my opinion that running with the 2nd best Starting lineup while having Lance run the 2nd Unit with CJ isn't the best course of action to take.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleazar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    On a side note, when did we go from a fact based judicial system to an intuition based judicial system? I am pretty sure the law itself says there must be sufficient facts beyond doubt in order to convict someone. The only time intuition comes into play is sentencing, and bail.
    This thread has been all over the place....it started as a Lance Vs. GH then went to the typical Lance Vs. Granger discussion...somehow went off into a FG% vs. TFG% discussion and then completely went off the tracks with this whole Lawyer/Judicial analogy.

    Last edited by CableKC; 11-04-2013 at 04:40 PM.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  31. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CableKC For This Useful Post:


  32. #747
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,085

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Name one person here who has said that we should just let a bunch of computers tell us who is right and who's wrong. Name one.
    Hey, you've taken my "fact machine" metaphor and changed the argument!






    .

    .

    .

    .


    “People talk about how quiet he [McKey] is, but he’s really been helpful. He gives a lot of insight to players in how to guard certain teams and what their weaknesses are. The whole team listens to him, and it makes my job a lot easier. Having players like him is what pro basketball is all about for me.” —Larry Brown

  33. The Following User Says Thank You to McKeyFan For This Useful Post:


  34. #748
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,123

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    In post 505, Mattie used the fact that Danny was a more efficient scorer than Kobe Bryant as reason that he still thought Danny should still start over Lance (at least that's the way I read his post). My sarcastic comment about Brent Barry and Michael Jordan was a sarcastic way of illustrating that the efficiency stat didn't necessarily illustrate who would be the better fit in the starting lineup between Lance and Danny. Had I known that you would still be obsessing about it 15 hours after the fact, I probably wouldn't have made it.

    I never told mattie what he could and couldn't say though. I just said what I wanted to say.
    Your reply had nothing to do with who would fit better in the starting lineup, but rather who was the better overall player. Had you said that the most efficient player isn't necessarily the best fit, there would be absolutely NO qualms with it. But you didn't.

    You shouldn't have said it, not because I'd obsess over it, but because it wasn't a good point to try and make in the first place. It's just a perfect illustration of one person saying one thing, and then the reader changing what was said into something else, so the reader could have something to argue.

    EDIT: And going back and rereading what was said, it wasn't even about who was the better fit nor better player. BnG made a post where he called Danny a volume shooter, and Mattie was pushing back against that point in showing that Danny was a pretty efficient player.
    Last edited by Since86; 11-04-2013 at 04:43 PM.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  35. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:


  36. #749
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,041

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    History tell us that guys that are out of the NBA for almost 2 years after having surgery.
    Danny Granger was ruled out indefinetely in October 30, 2012. The date right now is November 4, 2013. Danny has been out for 1 year and 5 days (and he hasn't even been out for that long technically since he did play in pre-season).

    But let's just say that it has been 2 years because it suits our agenda, right?
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  37. #750
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,827

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You're reply had nothing to do with who would fit better in the starting lineup, but rather who was the better overall player. Had you said that the most efficient player isn't necessarily the best fit, there would be absolutely NO qualms with it. But you didn't.

    You shouldn't have said it, not because I'd obsess over it, but because it wasn't a good point to try and make in the first place. It's just a perfect illustration of one person saying one thing, and then the reader changing what was said into something else, so the reader could have something to argue.
    I beg for your forgiveness.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •