Owner Real Deal Posted September 19, 2009 Owner Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Apparently gelling with Billups led to more wins and a trip to the WCF. Does that not mean something? Yeah congrats you win based on stats but at the end of the day what matters is who the team went further with and it was obviously Billups. Congrats on winning a stats debate I guess.So because the 2004 Lakers lost the NBA Finals with Kobe and Shaq, yet won them with Kobe and Gasol...can I conclude that the 2009 Gasol was better than the 2004 Shaq? I believe the 2009 Lakers won more games as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 So because the 2004 Lakers lost the NBA Finals with Kobe and Shaq, yet won them with Kobe and Gasol...can I conclude that the 2009 Gasol was better than the 2004 Shaq? I believe the 2009 Lakers won more games as well. Maybe so? In Denver's case the result of adding Billups was more wins and a playoff run. You can have your stats but everyone saw what Denver did this year with Billups and without Iverson. It's not difficult to see why Iverson's never gotten a ring and why he got traded from Philly and Denver and why not many teams wanted him this off season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YugoRocketsFan Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 So because the 2004 Lakers lost the NBA Finals with Kobe and Shaq, yet won them with Kobe and Gasol...can I conclude that the 2009 Gasol was better than the 2004 Shaq? I believe the 2009 Lakers won more games as well. I love the examples you use in debates, it really has nothing to do with the subject matter. EVER. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 I love the examples you use in debates, it really has nothing to do with the subject matter. EVER. Yeah I'm not sure what those teams have to do with this debate. If we're talking about the Nuggets its clear that they were a better team with Billups even if Iverson had better stats. Iverson's had better stats than almost anyone yet he has no ring to show for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted September 20, 2009 Owner Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 I love the examples you use in debates, it really has nothing to do with the subject matter. EVER.Why not? If someone is going to say something, yet exclude other examples, then that's being a hypocrite. If Melo getting to the WCF with Billups means that he's a better player than Iverson, then the same can be said for Kobe's teammates, Shaq and Gasol. I think you guys run into other examples and think, "Oh man, so how do I apply my logic to THAT?" Then you come up with, "Why even bring them up, when they have nothing to do with the topic?!?!" Nice exit strategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Multi-Billionaire Posted September 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 You really are good at using stats for arguments Real, noone can dispute that. But basketball is more than stats. We're here to discuss the game and meet opinions from various people. If you're using stats to see and talk the game, you become one dimensional just like Radmanovic who knows nothing else but shoot. You can talk defense to him and he wouldn't understand and keep shooting. Billups stresses the importance of sharing the ball. So it's not like, "okay this possession watch this." And next possession, "Nene, your turn, show us what you can do." When we were a streetball team, even if Kleiza was open in the corner, many times he's snubbed for a forced jumper by Melo or AI. Gradually, the four players without the ball tend to watch and do nothing... this makes the defense work less and makes the offensive team easier to defend. But when players share the ball, it's stressing ball movement and reducing over-dribbling from a single player. The four players without the ball know if they get open they will get the ball. They become more determined to do this since there's a purpose to it. There becomes player and ball movement, making the defense work more and makes the offensive team harder to defend. It's also become clearer to the all 5 players on the court of their roles... should they camp at three pt line and wait for open shots, should they cut, should they set a pick, should they ready themselves for a potential offensive rebound... These all are not possible when they become watchers in streetball scheme. This makes a system and not random plays. But why am I fooling myself? It's not like you came to know basketball last week... you know this game since the 1990s, you're fooling yourself trying to argue the reality with stats, because deep down you know the game is not all about stats. Stats are used to support an argument based on your observation, but not for the basis of analysis for arguments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted September 20, 2009 Owner Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 The point is that I used stats to show that... 1) Iverson had the better statistical season with Denver2) Melo, Martin, Kleiza and others were better overall with Iverson as a teammate3) the gap between the two teams, defensively, was very slim Then I used the fact that Nene, Chris Andersen and Dahntay Jones were not on the team in 2008, all three contributing either offensively or defensively, in big ways. Then I gave you another reason why the Nuggets did better, and that is getting rid of Camby. And all any of you have to say is that the Nuggets won four more games and got to the WCF. I don't know what else needs to be discussed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 Why not? If someone is going to say something, yet exclude other examples, then that's being a hypocrite. If Melo getting to the WCF with Billups means that he's a better player than Iverson, then the same can be said for Kobe's teammates, Shaq and Gasol. I think you guys run into other examples and think, "Oh man, so how do I apply my logic to THAT?" Then you come up with, "Why even bring them up, when they have nothing to do with the topic?!?!" Nice exit strategy. Like I said before. You can have all the individual accolades and be happy about them. But when it comes down to it, those guys were basically on the same exact team and they went further with Billups as their PG. You can have the scoring titles and everything else that comes with Allen Iverson. I'll take Billups on my team any day. The Lakers have nothing to do with this debate so I don't know why you're bringing them up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Posted September 20, 2009 Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 and got to the WCF. That's all that matters in the end no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted September 20, 2009 Owner Report Share Posted September 20, 2009 Like I said before. You can have all the individual accolades and be happy about them. But when it comes down to it, those guys were basically on the same exact team and they went further with Billups as their PG. You can have the scoring titles and everything else that comes with Allen Iverson. I'll take Billups on my team any day. The Lakers have nothing to do with this debate so I don't know why you're bringing them up.It was an example of you guys not being able to use your logic with other teams/situations, which means your logic is flawed. Getting to the WCF is all that matters? Not really. You still lose. The Spurs were playing with a hobbling Ginobili in 2008, as he hurt the team more than he helped them, and then fell 4-1 against us. In 2009, they were demolished in the first round by the Mavs, without Ginobili playing at all. But you guys won't consider who the Nuggets had to play in 2008, either, did you? You didn't consider the fac that they ran into the Lakers in the first round. You don't consider anything BUT those four wins and a WCF berth. Good for them. They still lost, and I'm inclined to believe that Iverson would've produced more against the Lakers than Billups did, because he actually did (in 2008) and Billups choked (in 2009). But whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Multi-Billionaire Posted September 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 The point is that I used stats to show that... 1) Iverson had the better statistical season with Denver2) Melo, Martin, Kleiza and others were better overall with Iverson as a teammate3) the gap between the two teams, defensively, was very slim Then I used the fact that Nene, Chris Andersen and Dahntay Jones were not on the team in 2008, all three contributing either offensively or defensively, in big ways. Then I gave you another reason why the Nuggets did better, and that is getting rid of Camby. And all any of you have to say is that the Nuggets won four more games and got to the WCF. I don't know what else needs to be discussed. I cannot care less about statistical reasons anymore for the fact that it is clear it is not about just stats. Congrats to have analysed, observed, and winning 50% of the game flawlessly and accurately, but you're still ignoring the other half. All the facts you pointed out is AI had a better individual stats than Billups, and AI's teammates had better individual stats than Billups'. I can't care less about individuals or stats anymore... those are guys playing individually and not together. You come back to stats and individual's success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YugoRocketsFan Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 Why not? If someone is going to say something, yet exclude other examples, then that's being a hypocrite. If Melo getting to the WCF with Billups means that he's a better player than Iverson, then the same can be said for Kobe's teammates, Shaq and Gasol. I think you guys run into other examples and think, "Oh man, so how do I apply my logic to THAT?" Then you come up with, "Why even bring them up, when they have nothing to do with the topic?!?!" Nice exit strategy. kobe won 3 rings with Shaq and won 1 with Gasol, 2 totally different situations. Every different situation has its own logic, everybody knows that, adding the same logic to different situations wont obviously work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.