2006 NBA PLAYOFFS

Quote:

Marion has been a terrific player for years(much better than "just good"), long before Nash returned to Phoenix.

This argument is one very similar to the one used against Amare Stoudemire last year. Most seem to accept that Steve Nash makes these guys great, without really considering that, perhaps, these guys also make him great.

he has been a good player. but even last year while cinsidered an important player, without amre(who is a great player, just matured when nash got there. would have happened, just not as fast) and joe and nash, again, marion would be on a sinking ship. nash is the key to the team, he is the one that makes them all better, as well as the best player on the team. for all his stats, you have again, nash to thank. though the d, is all marion, nash's offense capabilities open up marion for easy buckets, nash's passes, and drives, pick n rolls, all that boils down to a point gaurd that creates. say what you want, but it will fall on deaf ears. a point gaurd creates, and the best point guard will create the most opportunitys, as nash as done, and marion, to his credit, has taken full advantage as he should.

Quote:

How do you figure that? Avery inherited the second winningest franchise of the past half-decade, a team that won 60 games in 2003 and made it to the conference finals that year.

Even if the change in coaching philosophy did help the team tremendously, how does that hurt Dirk?

2nd? behind san antonio and detroit? how does it hurt dirk is in the fact that in an offense only team, he was a star, no one played to sides of the court. now dirk, while brilliant on offense has shown what he lacks on d. they as a whole have come a long way, but he is not near as dominant on both sides the court as most mvp canidates.

Quote:

Well...LeBron accounted for a larger percentage of the team's offense, has a giant advantage in terms of PER, player wins and win shares, was statistically the most versatile player in the NBA, and outplayed Nash when the two went head to head. In other words, LeBron was more effecient and more productive.

Let's put it this way: even if you believe what no metric in the universe supports -that Nash was as good on a per minute basis as LeBron James- LeBron played more than half a quarter per game(7 minutes) than Nash. He was on the court 20% more!

having a better year doesn't equate to mvp as we both know. and again, lebron is slowly dragging his team along while nash took his team on a team that was significantly less powered than the year before right back to where they were last year. aegu for marion, but he was not as good as joe, or amare were last year, without them he has shined, but as creator, and leader, nash gets the credit.

Quote:

How can Nash have done the most for his team if he wasn't even the best player on it?

who was? marion? your still beating that dead horse, no way is marion the better player. nash creates, nash opens up, nash is the one behind and in control of most of phoenix's plays and success. sure, he may not score the most, but who is the one passin the rock for that sweet jumper? who is the one setting up pick n rolls, no looks, and the like? marion? no, you can replace marion with any of a dozen of players and get the same result, but the same could not be said for nash.

Quote:

Expected by whom?

who didn't? who didn't expect essentialy the same exact team but with a more defensive minded coach to do better. i never said better than san antonio, or detroit, but they were on their heels until the very end of the year. including i think 2 of 4 with sa, and 1 of 2 with detroit. they made their case as a better team, and as we know, playoffs are won with defense. they are expected to have their best chance at the spurs this year. why? because they showed a better team this year all season long.

Quote:

"Biggest surprise" doesn't equate "most valuable". It's pretty ridiculous to argue that, because LeBron didn't exceed expectations, he's less valuable than someone who did. He was expected to be MVP-caliber, and he was. Shouldn't that be a point of merit, rather than a point of detraction?

actually, you should know suprise means a lot in the voters minds. you take last year mvp + did just as much with less team = excellent candidate to repeat.

Quote:

big_pimp_tim said:
nash is the key to the team, he is the one that makes them all better, as well as the best player on the team. for all his stats, you have again, nash to thank. though the d, is all marion, nash's offense capabilities open up marion for easy buckets, nash's passes, and drives, pick n rolls, all that boils down to a point gaurd that creates.

But without a player of Marion's skillset to finish, all those plays Nash "created" wouldn't amount to anything. Without Marion's scoring, teams would simply double Nash and force someone else to beat them. If Nash so vital to his team that everyone else was nothing more than a puppet being pulled at the strings, opposing defenses would just force the ball out of his hands. Also, Nash has no role in Marion's rebounding and(as you note)outstanding defense.

One aspect of Nash's game that doesn't receive a lot of attention is the fact that he turns the ball over a lot, even for someone who controls the ball as much as he does. Of the 40 point guards who qualified(those that played 2000 minutes or 70 games), Nash finished 30th in turnover ratio. Not the number of turnovers per game, but the percentage of his possessions that resulted in a turnover. Even guys like Allen Iversion and Stephon Marbury, generally considered to be ball-hogs and turnover-machines, finished well ahead of him.

For a comparison, of the 51 power forwards who qualified, Marion finished fourth in turnover ratio.

Quote:

2nd? behind san antonio and detroit?

Dallas has won more games the last half decade than any team other than San Antonio. More than Detroit. Even more than the Lakers.

Quote:

how does it hurt dirk is in the fact that in an offense only team, he was a star, no one played to sides of the court. now dirk, while brilliant on offense has shown what he lacks on d. they as a whole have come a long way, but he is not near as dominant on both sides the court as most mvp canidates.

That completely contradicts your argument in favor of Steve Nash.

Quote:

having a better year doesn't equate to mvp as we both know. and again, lebron is slowly dragging his team along while nash took his team on a team that was significantly less powered than the year before right back to where they were last year.

I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that LeBron is "slowly dragging his team along".

Quote:

who was? marion? your still beating that dead horse, no way is marion the better player.

Heh, well, if I'm beating a dead horse, it's because you seem to keep trying to give it life.

The argument for Marion against Nash is kind of similar to the one with LeBron against Nash(only, to a lesser extent). Marion scores more, rebounds more, is a vastly superior defensive player, turns the ball over less, is more efficient, more versatile, and plays significantly more minutes.

Quote:

marion? no, you can replace marion with any of a dozen of players and get the same result, but the same could not be said for nash.

That's a nice statement, but you have nothing supporting it, and certainly no way of proving it. Statistically, Marion was one of the 10 best players in basketball last year and, as he's arguably the most underrated player in the game, has also been one of the 15-20 best since 2001, his second year in the league. Although he had slightly down years in '02 and '04, he's ranked in the top 6 in player wins in '01, '03, '05 and now '06 as well. It is worth noting that, since he entered the league in 2000, Marion has ranked ahead of Nash in player wins and win shares every single season, including this season, and last. Most of those years, Nash was the more efficient player, just not the more productive one. This year, as I already said, he was neither.

So, flashy play aside, the evidence seems to suggest that Nash is the more replacable player, not Marion.

Quote:

who didn't? who didn't expect essentialy the same exact team but with a more defensive minded coach to do better.

I just gave you a bunch of examples of who didn't.

Quote:

actually, you should know suprise means a lot in the voters minds. you take last year mvp + did just as much with less team = excellent candidate to repeat.

Yes, I already said in my first post:

Quote:

Animalman said:
I thought either [Nash] or Billups would win, simply because sportswriters are dopes.

However, I wasn't arguing who should have won based on the criteria of idiot sportswriters.

Quote:

But without a player of Marion's skillset to finish, all those plays Nash "created" wouldn't amount to anything. Without Marion's scoring, teams would simply double Nash and force someone else to beat them. If Nash so vital to his team that everyone else was nothing more than a puppet being pulled at the strings, opposing defenses would just force the ball out of his hands. Also, Nash has no role in Marion's rebounding and(as you note)outstanding defense.

One aspect of Nash's game that doesn't receive a lot of attention is the fact that he turns the ball over a lot, even for someone who controls the ball as much as he does. Of the 40 point guards who qualified(those that played 2000 minutes or 70 games), Nash finished 30th in turnover ratio. Not the number of turnovers per game, but the percentage of his possessions that resulted in a turnover. Even guys like Allen Iversion and Stephon Marbury, generally considered to be ball-hogs and turnover-machines, finished well ahead of him.

For a comparison, of the 51 power forwards who qualified, Marion finished fourth in turnover ratio.

yes, but then again, you keep uinderestimating what a good point gaurd can do. sure marion is good, but without nash to get the ball to him then does he get as much. does he get the shots opportunity nash creates. the thing is nash goes from dallas where he did the same thing, to suns, suddenly the suns are running and gunning. amre (who woul dhave been awesome) is instantly awesome. mareion and joe johnsone are wanted all over. it's not coincidence. look at the nets and those players who left kidd. where are they now. what are they doing with out kidd to feed the, and make.

Quote:

Dallas has won more games the last half decade than any team other than San Antonio. More than Detroit. Even more than the Lakers.

i started to look that up, but past 2003-04 i had a hard time. but it looks like you could be right. more wins though in the reg doesn't parlay into post season success.

Quote:

That completely contradicts your argument in favor of Steve Nash.

no, it's different in that steve plays it, on the perimeter, where dirk has a big man still prefers the perimeter. it gives him a disadvantage to start with. the same one he has on offense, he has to deal with on defense. he has always been soft on defense, hash will still get his steals.

Quote:

I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that LeBron is "slowly dragging his team along".

because he is doing it slowly by himself. he is starting to get players to step up, but besides him, who else is there.

Quote:

Heh, well, if I'm beating a dead horse, it's because you seem to keep trying to give it life.

no, you seem to not understand what one great playmaker does for players like marion. for instance, joe johnson, or carlos boozer, kenyon martin. great playmaker, and they looked good, but haven't lived up to it once leaving said player.

and i would expect marion as a player not handling the ball to turn it over less. and to rebound more. that comes with the job. nash is there to create, suprise, and get the ball to people like marion so they have to turn shoot, and thus boosting their points and limiting their turnover opportunities.

Quote:

That's a nice statement, but you have nothing supporting it, and certainly no way of proving it. Statistically, Marion was one of the 10 best players in basketball last year and, as he's arguably the most underrated player in the game, has also been one of the 15-20 best since 2001, his second year in the league. Although he had slightly down years in '02 and '04, he's ranked in the top 6 in player wins in '01, '03, '05 and now '06 as well. It is worth noting that, since he entered the league in 2000, Marion has ranked ahead of Nash in player wins and win shares every single season, including this season, and last. Most of those years, Nash was the more efficient player, just not the more productive one. This year, as I already said, he was neither.

So, flashy play aside, the evidence seems to suggest that Nash is the more replacable player, not Marion.

no need for me to prove what history has proved for me. bulls minus jordan. good, but not the same. same for the players who left nj and kidd. or boozer. or joe johnson, or the count;less players who left a team with an mvp calibre player and did not measure up. how many good forwards with nash would have higher point avgs, wiith nash and his up tempo run n gun? most of them if they are have assed good. but how many point gaurds can deliver. credit where credit is due, he is playing damn good, but easily, nash is the leader, and marion is 2nd banana. to argue nash is easily replaceable that is not true. not many point gaurds of nash's calibre but plenty forwards with marion's abilities that would thrive off a point gaurd who can dish like him. or like kidd in his heyday.

Quote:

Animalman said:
I thought either [Nash] or Billups would win, simply because sportswriters are dopes.

However, I wasn't arguing who should have won based on the criteria of idiot sportswriters.

so in your mind nash leading the team with the loss of their big scorer rebouinding athletic amare to a similair record and playoff seeding doesn't already put him as a heavy favorite? he didn't have an outstanding year, but to discount what he did with the suns for any reason is no less dopey. billups is not in nash's league in the fact that he doesn't have one good player, like nash does, he has 4.who really does nash have besides marion. kobe has lamar, and kwame coming along nicely. james, for the same reason as nash should be up there due to his doing it alone venture, but nash is getting more done at this point.

Quote:

big_pimp_tim said:
yes, but then again, you keep uinderestimating what a good point gaurd can do. sure marion is good, but without nash to get the ball to him then does he get as much. does he get the shots opportunity nash creates.

Well, as I already said, Marion was a very good(and very underrated player) before Nash arrived. Marion's 2005 season was nearly identical to his performance in '03 and '01, so it was hardly a sudden, miraculous transformation.

I've never said that Nash doesn't help Marion. Nash is a great player, a great point guard, and yes, he absolutely makes his team better. That being said, I think it's a reciprocal relationship. Marion helps Nash, too.

Quote:

the thing is nash goes from dallas where he did the same thing, to suns, suddenly the suns are running and gunning. amre (who woul dhave been awesome) is instantly awesome. mareion and joe johnsone are wanted all over.

However, Nash's first couple of seasons in Dallas were pretty terrible. Then, in '01, when Dirk came into his own, suddenly Nash was playing well again. So, really, who was helping whom?

Also, Joe Johnson had his best season as a pro last year as an Atlanta Hawk, and Quentin Richardson was better as an L.A Clipper than as a Phoenix Sun.

Quote:

i started to look that up, but past 2003-04 i had a hard time. but it looks like you could be right. more wins though in the reg doesn't parlay into post season success.

You can look it up here.

Quote:

no, it's different in that steve plays it, on the perimeter, where dirk has a big man still prefers the perimeter. it gives him a disadvantage to start with. the same one he has on offense, he has to deal with on defense. he has always been soft on defense, hash will still get his steals.

Dirk may prefer to play defense on the perimeter, but that doesn't mean he's bad on defense. He's a much better defender than Nash, and really doesn't get the credit he should. Often times, when a player is labeled as "soft" early in their career, it's very difficult for them to shake that label. Dirk averages virtually the same number of steals per game as Nash, while blocking a good number of shots. Nash has been much worse than the league average defensive rating pretty much every year he's been in the league. I love the guy, but he's just bad on defense.

Quote:

because he is doing it slowly by himself. he is starting to get players to step up, but besides him, who else is there.

Well, Drew Gooden and Zydrunas Ilgauskas are pretty underrated players, but wouldn't the fact that LeBron doesn't have a terrific supporting cast, yet still wins, help his cause?

Quote:

no, you seem to not understand what one great playmaker does for players like marion. for instance, joe johnson, or carlos boozer, kenyon martin. great playmaker, and they looked good, but haven't lived up to it once leaving said player.

Joe Johnson, as I mentioned, had a career year this year as an Atlanta Hawk.
Carlos Boozer has faced injury problems his years in Utah, but was on pace to have his best season this year.
Kenyon Martin was an underachiever in New Jersey, and is an underachiever in Denver(who bumped heads with George Karl one too many times).

Quote:

and i would expect marion as a player not handling the ball to turn it over less.

I think you missed the point. It's not his turnover average, it's his turnover rate. His handling the ball leads to a smaller percentage of turnovers than Nash.

Quote:

to argue nash is easily replaceable that is not true. not many point gaurds of nash's calibre but plenty forwards with marion's abilities that would thrive off a point gaurd who can dish like him. or like kidd in his heyday.

I never said Nash was easily replacable. However, Nash being more unique doesn't mean he's better. There actually is a difference between similarity and replacability.

This thread kind of reminds me of the one on Barry Bonds, and the Jamesian theory on underrated players. Players that are good at everything, rather than great at a few things, tend to be overlooked and taken for granted, because they don't seem like great players. Marion is kind of a textbook example of this. Nash, conversely, is a pretty good example of an overrated player, because he's great at very specific things, but not very good in other important areas.

Actually, I'm not sure that last part is fair to say, because in Dallas Nash was actually very underrated. That's actually what makes this whole thing so interesting to me. He's gone from being underrated to overrated in just two years.

Quote:

so in your mind nash leading the team with the loss of their big scorer rebouinding athletic amare to a similair record and playoff seeding doesn't already put him as a heavy favorite?

As I already said, biggest surprise doesn't mean best, or most valuable. Nash shoudln't have been the MVP last year, so the fact that he had a better year this year doesn't mean a whole lot to me.

If there was just a small difference statistically between Nash and the top-tier players, I probably would have given him the benefit of the doubt, since he didn't have his best player on the court with him. Unfortunately, the gap is pretty significant. Almost massive, actually. He simply was not in the class of LeBron, Kobe, Dirk or Wade this year.

Quote:

billups is not in nash's league in the fact that he doesn't have one good player, like nash does, he has 4.who really does nash have besides marion.

But Billups doesn't have any player as good as Marion. Infact, the difference between Marion and Detroit's second best player is pretty close to the difference between Nash and the best players in the league.

Quote:

kobe has lamar, and kwame coming along nicely. james, for the same reason as nash should be up there due to his doing it alone venture, but nash is getting more done at this point.

Of Cleveland, LA, Detroit, Phoenix and Dallas, Kobe has easily the worst supporting cast. He also has the worst record, so...yeah.

Quote:

Well, as I already said, Marion was a very good(and very underrated player) before Nash arrived. Marion's 2005 season was nearly identical to his performance in '03 and '01, so it was hardly a sudden, miraculous transformation.

I've never said that Nash doesn't help Marion. Nash is a great player, a great point guard, and yes, he absolutely makes his team better. That being said, I think it's a reciprocal relationship. Marion helps Nash, too.

a bad year? yet nash helped fuel exactly the game style nellie utilized. run n gun, lots of shots, lots of passes, and in the process, turnovers happen. agreed marion helps nash, but to conclude marion is going to do as well without him is also possible. he might go to a team of lesser quality, like joe johnson and put up bigger number, but then do what? like joe johnson, he will not make the other players around him better. nash does. that is not a stat, but is undeniable.

Quote:

However, Nash's first couple of seasons in Dallas were pretty terrible. Then, in '01, when Dirk came into his own, suddenly Nash was playing well again. So, really, who was helping whom?

Also, Joe Johnson had his best season as a pro last year as an Atlanta Hawk, and Quentin Richardson was better as an L.A Clipper than as a Phoenix Sun.

yes, but before dirk, who were the mavs? a point gaurd alone is nothing. best in the league or not.look at a.i. or kidd. or any other point. you can make the best passes all day long, but if you pass to a butter hands with 2 left feet what good does it do? as far as joe johnson, i addressed him. better stats, but what has he done for the hawks? he hasn't made them as a whole better, really, or his teammates. just padded his career stats and wallet. and q rich, you say he was better knwon as a clip, i say q rich was a clip? exactly, a pretty good player on a horrible team isn't impressive.

Quote:

Dirk may prefer to play defense on the perimeter, but that doesn't mean he's bad on defense. He's a much better defender than Nash, and really doesn't get the credit he should. Often times, when a player is labeled as "soft" early in their career, it's very difficult for them to shake that label. Dirk averages virtually the same number of steals per game as Nash, while blocking a good number of shots. Nash has been much worse than the league average defensive rating pretty much every year he's been in the league. I love the guy, but he's just bad on defense.

dirk was labeled soft because he is soft. you don't see dirk banging it in the middle because he stays out there, he prefers out there, and when gaurding men in the middle he would rather not be there and it shows. you compare him and the no defence dirk, to the run n gun suns. dallas without nash tried it, and the suns were better at it. the suns were less on the make the stop, as they were beating them back up the floor. and were better at it. being weak on d, and using it to try and make some positive out of it.

Quote:

Well, Drew Gooden and Zydrunas Ilgauskas are pretty underrated players, but wouldn't the fact that LeBron doesn't have a terrific supporting cast, yet still wins, help his cause?

it does, hence him being one of the finalists. and drew and z. ilgauskas are underrated, but easily marion calibre, switch either with marion and it's marion is underrated and ilgauskas is awesome, all the sudden. why? nash. makes them better.

Quote:

Joe Johnson, as I mentioned, had a career year this year as an Atlanta Hawk.
Carlos Boozer has faced injury problems his years in Utah, but was on pace to have his best season this year.
Kenyon Martin was an underachiever in New Jersey, and is an underachiever in Denver(who bumped heads with George Karl one too many times).

johnson, again i addressed this, he is good, but he doesn't make his team better. boozer has not done anything in utah, hurt, maybe, but not hurt it means nothing. he is still just another good player as opposed to hearing his name on espn every night. no jason kidd to up his game, give him the dish, and the open looks. he has to earn every bit of it as opposed to have a pg to give him great looks. k-mart was just a flop in denver.

Quote:

I think you missed the point. It's not his turnover average, it's his turnover rate. His handling the ball leads to a smaller percentage of turnovers than Nash.

no, i perhaps wasn't clear enough. what does marion do with the ball. he looks to score. nash passes. now you can turn the ball over why attempting a shot, but opposed to being the ball handler. you cannot compare a ball handler, a pg, to a forward. so he turns it over less, sure his ratio is lower, but then how many passes per turnover. how many shots. if he touches 10 times, passes 3, turns over one, he has a low ratio. nash passes more, turns over more. his job is to try and thread the needle with those passes to open players. it happens. alot.

Quote:

I never said Nash was easily replacable. However, Nash being more unique doesn't mean he's better. There actually is a difference between similarity and replacability.

nash is unique. and better. better because while being an excellent player he makes others around him better. like johnson, or many other players, pippen included. good, but not one to improve his teammates. take nash out, and the suns are still good, playoff team. but contender, no. not without parker, kidd, or another excellent handler to replace him.

i do think he gets alot of credit due to being underrated for so long. i also think he is meeting the hype with playing well. marion has been shown his weaknesses by playing true defensive teams, like the spurs has a good defender, but, not much more than that. he won't shut people down, and in fact will be shut down. nash on the other hand will still get his points, and his assists, and yes, his turnovers.

Quote:

As I already said, biggest surprise doesn't mean best, or most valuable. Nash shoudln't have been the MVP last year, so the fact that he had a better year this year doesn't mean a whole lot to me.

If there was just a small difference statistically between Nash and the top-tier players, I probably would have given him the benefit of the doubt, since he didn't have his best player on the court with him. Unfortunately, the gap is pretty significant. Almost massive, actually. He simply was not in the class of LeBron, Kobe, Dirk or Wade this year.

but again mvp. no amare, or johnson. and he still pulled his team to the 2 seed. (3rd best record in west) he was the most valueable on his team, and most valueable in the league for brining a team with the most going against them and still acheiving a great record.

Quote:

But Billups doesn't have any player as good as Marion. Infact, the difference between Marion and Detroit's second best player is pretty close to the difference between Nash and the best players in the league.

i think there are quite a few that would happily disagree with you on that. hamilton not as good as marion. sheed. ben. not as good as marion? that is your opinion, and your entitled to it, but it is not a common one.

Quote:

Of Cleveland, LA, Detroit, Phoenix and Dallas, Kobe has easily the worst supporting cast. He also has the worst record, so...yeah.

yes he does. dallas actually is slowly getting a pretty good supporting cast. detroit, has an excellent starting five, but it drops sharply after that. phoenix on the other hand dropped in quality, but still remained in the same place.

Quote:

big_pimp_tim said:
a bad year? yet nash helped fuel exactly the game style nellie utilized. run n gun, lots of shots, lots of passes, and in the process, turnovers happen.

I'm not sure what you're responding to. What's this about a bad year?

Quote:

agreed marion helps nash, but to conclude marion is going to do as well without him is also possible. he might go to a team of lesser quality, like joe johnson and put up bigger number, but then do what? like joe johnson, he will not make the other players around him better. nash does. that is not a stat, but is undeniable.

Even in his best year, Johnson still wasn't nearly the player Marion is, so you can't lump the two together.

I'm not really sure why you say that Nash makes everyone else better and Marion doesn't. I mean, I can't really argue against it...but you can't really argue for it, either. There's not much to say on it one way or another.

We can all visualize the scenario with Nash and Marion, where Nash dribbles around some players, drives to the basket, and makes a behind the back pass to Marion for an easy dunk or layup. We can all see that, arrive at the position that this is how most offensive positions go with Phoenix, and then say "well, clearly Nash is the MVP and the other guys are just his role players".

But not only is that lazy, it's also criminally unfair to Shawn Marion, who has been a good player in the NBA just as long as Steve Nash has.

At the end of the day, I believe that no one player can make all the guys around him better. The only team that I can think of from the last 30 years to win a championship with less than two great or very good players is the '94 Rockets. The Pistons won it in '04 without a great player(I think Billups has become great now, though), but they had three very good ones. Jordan had Pippen. Shaq had Kobe. Bird had McHale. Magic had Kareem. San Antonio had the twin towers.

Almost all of those mentioned above had points early in their career when they were not winning, and a few of them were put in that category of being great but never able to win the big one, never able to carry their team to the top. Until they did, at which point all such discussion stopped. Sort of a fickle thing, really. So many people said that John Elway would never win a Super Bowl. Now, having won two, people only talk about what a great big game performer he is. I believe that in 10 years when Peyton Manning has retired, having won a Super Bowl or two, all the people saying now that he chokes under pressure will be talking about how great he is in the clutch.

I digress, but my only point is that the advantage to following empirical data is that it is rarely fickle.

Quote:

yes, but before dirk, who were the mavs? a point gaurd alone is nothing. best in the league or not.look at a.i. or kidd. or any other point. you can make the best passes all day long, but if you pass to a butter hands with 2 left feet what good does it do?

Ok, now it seems like you've switched sides and are now agreeing with me. This is what I've been saying all along, and what you have been arguing against.

Quote:

as far as joe johnson, i addressed him. better stats, but what has he done for the hawks?

You "addressed" him by claiming that he had performed much worse since being weaned off the teet of Steve Nash. Which is false.

What has he done for the Hawks? That's kind of beside the point. He chose to take a boatload of money to play for what is probably the crappiest franchise in basketball. That makes him greedy, but it doesn't take away from the fact that he was better without Steve Nash around.

Quote:

he hasn't made them as a whole better, really, or his teammates. just padded his career stats and wallet. and q rich, you say he was better knwon as a clip, i say q rich was a clip? exactly, a pretty good player on a horrible team isn't impressive.

I'm sorry if it doesn't impress you, but if Nash made all these guys better, as you claim, why are they performing better without him?

Quote:

dirk was labeled soft because he is soft. you don't see dirk banging it in the middle because he stays out there, he prefers out there, and when gaurding men in the middle he would rather not be there and it shows. you compare him and the no defence dirk, to the run n gun suns. dallas without nash tried it, and the suns were better at it.

Technically, Dallas got closer, since they came within two games of the NBA finals, while the Suns "only" came within three.

I've watched nearly every NBA game Dirk has ever played in, and I see Dirk banging in the middle just fine. He'll never be confused with Ben Wallace, but he's not as bad as his reputation would suggest, and he's certainly not as bad as Steve Nash.

Quote:

it does, hence him being one of the finalists. and drew and z. ilgauskas are underrated, but easily marion calibre, switch either with marion and it's marion is underrated and ilgauskas is awesome, all the sudden. why? nash. makes them better.

Actually, I don't think Ilgauskas would fit terribly well in the Suns' offense. He's slow, and better at creating his own shot in the post than being set up by someone else. He's not a "run and gun" guy.

Marion, on the other hand, would be terrific with LeBron. The two would be an unbelievable fast break tandem. Marion combines the better aspects of the two players that were supposed to be LeBron's go to guys: Drew Gooden and Larry Hughes. Marion also wouldn't be as out of position playing the four in the East, which has fewer big men.

Quote:

johnson, again i addressed this, he is good, but he doesn't make his team better. boozer has not done anything in utah, hurt, maybe, but not hurt it means nothing. he is still just another good player as opposed to hearing his name on espn every night. no jason kidd to up his game, give him the dish, and the open looks. he has to earn every bit of it as opposed to have a pg to give him great looks. k-mart was just a flop in denver.

When did either Johnson or Boozer play with Jason Kidd?

Boozer has not done anything in Utah because he's been hurt. If Boozer was healthy last year, the Jazz are in the playoffs. Infact, if the Jazz weren't idiots, and drafted Chris Paul instead of Deron Williams, the Jazz are not only in the playoffs, but division winners and challenging Phoenix for the #2 seed in the playoffs. That's for another discussion, though.

Really, Boozer is sort of similar to Johnson, in that he's a greedy guy who took bigger money to go to a shittier team. Believe me, if Nash is in Atlanta, the Hawks are still a cellar dweller.

Quote:

no, i perhaps wasn't clear enough. what does marion do with the ball. he looks to score. nash passes. now you can turn the ball over why attempting a shot, but opposed to being the ball handler. you cannot compare a ball handler, a pg, to a forward. so he turns it over less, sure his ratio is lower, but then how many passes per turnover. how many shots. if he touches 10 times, passes 3, turns over one, he has a low ratio.

That makes no sense. Statistically, a player is more likely to turn the ball over while holding on it than passing it. A player can attempt a shot and have it blocked, they can have it stripped, they can simply lose it out of bounds, they can travel, carry or double-dribble, they can commit an offensive foul, or be called for time violations. A player's role on the team provides very little statistical variation in their turnover ratio.

Of course, even if you were right, you're still not addressing my main point: that Steve Nash turns it over more than almost every other point guard, even guys like Jason Kidd, who do pretty much nothing but pass(by your logic, making them more susceptible to the turnover).

Quote:

but again mvp. no amare, or johnson. and he still pulled his team to the 2 seed. (3rd best record in west) he was the most valueable on his team, and most valueable in the league for brining a team with the most going against them and still acheiving a great record.

This is a great argument for biggest surprise team. Not a very good one for MVP, unfortunately.

Although, saying he had no Johnson doesn't mean much, since the player they traded Johnson for(Boris Diaw) turned out to be better.

Quote:

i think there are quite a few that would happily disagree with you on that. hamilton not as good as marion. sheed. ben. not as good as marion? that is your opinion, and your entitled to it, but it is not a common one.

Actually, I think it is. It certainly is amongst those that actually pay attention to the data instead of jersey sales. Marion ranked 10th in the NBA in PER. Hamilton ranked 35th. Sheed 40th. Big Ben 42nd. Marion outscored Hamilton, outrebounded Wallace, and he's a great defender in his own right. He was better pretty much across the board than all of those guys.

That you don't realize it kind of goes back to my point about him being the most underrated guy in the game.

i didn't read all that. was gone for half awhile. and in that day and half i forgot, and realized when i got back, i just don't care bout the suns or nash and marion to discuss it really.

though i will say this, i do believe nash is the heart of that team, and he is a necessary component for their game style. marion is a good player, but nash is the lynchpin on the team.

plus, spurs win. bout time, fuckers.

LOOKITME IM IN EVERY FORUM!

it's cool, cause you all about real life and real people

It breaks my heart when my catchphrases are butchered.

yeah, but that is what they are made for.overuse and abuse!

Some damn good basketball going on in with the Cavs/Wizards and Suns/Lakers. I'm not in favor of stretching the playoffs out the way Stern has, but it clearly has added excitement in this case. I can't wait to see what LeBron and Gilbert are going to do tonight.

Kobe Bryant had one of the most bizarre postgame comments last night after the loss to the Suns(which, along with the game four stunner, was probably one of the best games I've seen all year). I wish I could find it, but it doesn't seem to be up yet. Essentially, he made an analogy comparing moving on after a loss to a bowel movement. Something about not checking out your dump after you've taken a shit. Seriously. It was as if Kobe was briefly possessed by PJP.

That, along with his "octagon" reference during the verbal bout with Raja Bell has me wondering if KB hasn't gone a little crazy. Or maybe a lot crazy.

Shit fool....I am PJP and PJP is me. I never look at a shit after I take a dump. I just move on! Where are the white women at?

Kobe also couldn't stop talking about how Raja Bell throwing elbows "excited" him.

You like the rough stuff, Kobe?

I like to make teh white wimmens bleed oh yeah!

That belongs in the octagon, Kobe!

whoaaaaaaaaaa

and i watched the end of regulation and ot, and yes that was some excellent basketball at the end of regulation. ot was all suns though.

spurs win.

nash wins mvp again
wallace gets defensive player of the year again
spurs win again

Looks about right to me.

Kobe fell apart in the game 7.

All hail King James!

why? from what i saw when he played a decent team it all fel apart.
he just sat on his "throne" most the second half and watched

My guess is he's being sarcastic.

By the way, the Pistons are a little better than "decent".

yes they were, but the wizards weren't. i was more impressed with the both the spurs/mavs than either team in the pistons/cavs game.

I like King James. He stands no chance against a real team, but apparantly the league thinks he brings better ratings as the second game than Dallas/SA, so all hail King James!

In reallity, the league is doing it's usual best at ignoring the top team to promote the top talent on the bad teams. Now that kills ratings.

Quote:

PenWing said:
I like King James. He stands no chance against a real team, but apparantly the league thinks he brings better ratings as the second game than Dallas/SA, so all hail King James!

In reallity, the league is doing it's usual best at ignoring the top team to promote the top talent on the bad teams. Now that kills ratings.

Well, I doubt those that tuned in for the Detroit game stayed around to watch most of it, but there is a reason they think King James brings better ratings(because he does).

Unfortunately, the "top teams" are considered by many casual fans to be, for lack of a better word, boring. Hence the poor ratings from last year's finals.

I was looking back over basketball reference at past MVP winners, and since 1978, the year turnovers were first recorded(a key component in calculating PER and win shares), Steve Nash's MVP seasons are the two lowest in terms of PER, and the second and third lowest in terms of win shares. Only Bill Walton, who coincidentally won the award in '78, had fewer win shares his MVP season, and Walton is unquestionably the least deserving winner of the last 30 years(not because he wasn't good, but because he missed 24 games, nearly a third of the season).

Nash's MVP seasons are also the worst in terms of defensive rating over the same span, but I don't think there's much debate over whether or not Nash is the biggest defensive liability ever to win the award. I don't put much stock in defensive stats, anyway.

yes, but he was the story, lil dude makin a team good kind of thing. besides actually being good helped. i personally didn't care for any of the top mvp contenders.

i don't think i have since tim, tim, garnet
and before them i could at least respect hakeem, or jordan, i just can't get into a.i., or shaq, or kobe, or nash like i could a few years ago.

spurs force game 7. cause they are awesome!

Quote:

big_pimp_tim said:
spurs force game 7. cause they are awesome!

I want them to win, but only because Mark Cuban is a droopy, drippy cunt.

If it's a battle of the biggest jackass owner, I'm afraid Peter Holt wins that one. Residents of the Dallas/Fort Worth area aren't able to purchase tickets to Spurs home games, thanks to Mr. Holt.

To my knowledge, Cuban hasn't prevented opposing fans from buying tickets.

Quote:

big_pimp_tim said:
spurs force game 7. cause they are awesome!

dude....you and Penwing are such rabid fans that you guys have lost touch with reality. A few weeks ago you guys said the spurs and pistons were gonna breeze to the NBA Finals.....now they are having big trouble just making it to their respective conference finals. I vote to throw their punk asses over the top rope.

What does any of this have to do with Mark Cuban being a droopy, drippy cunt? Stay on topic, people!!!

You guys can all kiss my ass, now.

Animalman, are YOU Mark Cuban?

If so, you're a droopy, drippy cunt.

Well, the Pistons have outlasted the Spurs and the Nets. That's good enough for me. Plus, Saunders has no clue, so the Pistons are probably fucked since the Heat are rested and the Pistons are tired and hurting. And even if the Pistons were rested and healthy, Saunders doesn't use the bench, and in a seven game series, the edge has to go to the Heat. I think it will be the Heat and the Suns in the finals.

Quote:

PJP said:

Quote:

PJP said:
Quote:

PJP said:

I win again!

Quote:

PenWing said:
I think it will be the Heat and the Suns in the finals.

Ah, I get it. Reverse psychology.

By the way, I think Chris Oakley has a challenger for the "I'm always wrong about sports" award.

Quote:

Animalman said:
By the way, I think Chris Oakley has a challenger for the "I'm always wrong about sports" award.

My original thoughts on San Antonio were right. My thoughts on Dallas being the bigger threat were right.

No reverse psychology here. Both should be seven game series. I like Nash, so that one is more of a hope. As for Miami, they're healthy, and Detroit isn't. But, their dumbass assistant coach was on the radio this morning, and when asked the difference between this year's Heat and last, he said last year the Pistons won because the Heat were hurt. The Pistons thrive on that stuff. It motivates them to have the world against them, and that's what I've been hearing and reading, that Miami will win. They've been playing great, and after the way Detroit almost got beaten by a one man show in the last round, it would make sense to go with Miami.

But, in reality, I'm just not going to get my hopes up. Like with the Tigers, I'd rather sit back and enjoy the show than worry about making bold predictions. I have enough to worry about as it is, I don't need to obsess over sports as well.

I'm just giving you a hard time because you picked the Heat to lose in the first round and now you're picking them to make it to the Finals.

At least you don't hate minorities like Chris.

It's not easy to make correct predictions, even in a sport I know more about than most people I know. In the NHL playoffs, I picked seven of eight series correctly in the first round, and that was only because I allowed myself to be blinded by my home team. In the second round, I was half right. In the third round, I haven't made a prediction, although unless something happens tonight, I think Edmonton will make it to the finals, because each series should go seven, and both should be evenly matched. I won't even begin to predict baseball, especially this early in the season. I don't think the Tigers will stay in first, but they might win the Wild Card if they can avoid a big losing streak. Still, even at the half, when predictions are more accurate, things can go south in a hurry.

I'm giving you a hard time because you're a spineless prick who blames the world for his troubles and has no taste in sports teams.

did I say that out loud?

Quote:

PJP said:
I'm giving you a hard time because you're a spineless prick who blames the world for his troubles and has no taste in sports teams.

Um, what now?

I blame no one for nothing. My lot in life is what it is. I think you're projecting yourself on me.

Woosah, my friend. Deep breaths and all that.

I fart on you.

And it really smells. You need to soak the beans in baking soda first. Then you don't get all that nasty gas.

A lot of interesting information about the TV ratings coming from the Houston Chronicle about the NBA finals opener:

Quote:

As we projected last week, the Mavericks-Heat NBA Finals have started like a typical NBA Finals involving a Texas team — down in the dumps in the Nielsen ratings.

Even though the outcome was in doubt most of the way, Game 1 had a 7.8 national Nielsen rating with an average audience of 8.56 million households. That's up from 7.2 and 7.86 million for the Spurs-Pistons opener last year but down from 9.8 and 10.6 million for Game 1 of Pistons-Lakers two years ago.

Houston held up its end with an 11.5 rating on KTRK (Channel 13), but that was down from 12.4 for last year's opener. Dallas-Fort Worth rated 32.8, the highest ever for a Mavericks game but no great shakes when compared with the 36.0 rating in Houston for Game 1 of the World Series, which eventually averaged 41.2.

Miami, meanwhile, had a surprisingly ho-hum 24.9 Game 1 rating.

I'm a little surprised by this. I really thought that Dallas and Miami, two major markets and two pretty exciting teams, both with clear starpower, would do well in the ratings. You've got Shaq, Dirk, Wade, lots of points, and two cities that love their sports franchises. Apparently, unless LeBron James is playing, people don't give a shit about basketball much anymore.

However, I was right about this series beating last year's abysmally bad ratings. MSNBC had this blurb the other day:

Quote:

NEW YORK - Ratings for the first two games of the the NBA finals between Miami and Dallas were up 13 percent for ABC in comparison to last year's championship series with San Antonio and Detroit.

The second game of the series on Sunday night, which Dallas won 99-85, drew an average rating of 8.0 _ a 17 percent increase from 2005.

The rating is the percentage of all homes with TVs, whether or not they are in use. Each rating point represents about 1.08 million households.