Top 4 teams faltering down the stretch . . .

[Reality]

Umm, I don't stand behind quotes that you chop up and change into your version of Reality.

This is great.  I posted the exact post of yours on Feb 26th and you come up with the above.

Lurker said it all.

[Reality]

If you keep changing the parameters of the discussion then anything said can be proved wrong.

But back to your original comments...you used 10 games.  You failed to mention that Duncan was out 7 of those 10 games.  Then you tried to compare the last 10 games of the Spurs to the beginning of the year for the Lakers and call it apples/oranges.  Then you tried to change it to just last night's game.  

When you decide what you want to discuss please post the parameters.  Then I will decide if I want to discuss that subject with you.  But I am not going to discuss a topic that changes everytime your brain farts.

   

Amen.  Well said.
 

[Randy]

Umm, I don't stand behind quotes that you chop up and change into your version of Reality.

This is great.  I posted the exact post of yours on Feb 26th and you come up with the above.

Lurker said it all.

The Lakers are going to need all 4 HOF's to make a run at the title -- but I think the same could be said for most teams in the WC, at this point, because the West is so tough.

That is my quote -- your take of my quote:  "The Lakers can't win a game without all 4 HOF'ers" (which is obviously bogus considering that the Lakers have had as much of the injury bug as any team in the league and they still have a better record than your vaunted Spurs).  Oops, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention exactly how many games that TD wasn't playing at the time.  Sorry, Lurker, perhaps you can get Voice to do a study on that.

I STILL stand behind my quote -- the Lakers need all 4 HOF's to make a run at the title -- the Lakers won't win the title this year, IMO, if all 4 HOF's don't play.  They can, however, win a lot of games without all 4 which is obvious when you look at there stats.  I know, you don't want to be confused by the facts, do you?

[Lurker]

you don't want to be confused by the facts, do you?

Not any more than you.

 :ph34r:  

[Randy]

you don't want to be confused by the facts, do you?

Not any more than you.

 :ph34r:

You know, when I think of the word "objectivity," you fail to come to mind.  When I think of homerism, you do.

The fact is that both of us know that the Lakers are going to rely as heavily on their starting line-up as the Spurs rely on TD.  Do the Spurs have a better bench?  Sure -- because they have more role players.  Do they have a better team?  No, the Lakers have already proven that three times this year.  Oops, only 2 of those did TD play in (not that it changed the outcome any).

[Lurker]

you don't want to be confused by the facts, do you?

Not any more than you.

 :ph34r:

You know, when I think of the word "objectivity," you fail to come to mind.  When I think of homerism, you do.

The fact is that both of us know that the Lakers are going to rely as heavily on their starting line-up as the Spurs rely on TD.  Do the Spurs have a better bench?  Sure -- because they have more role players.  Do they have a better team?  No, the Lakers have already proven that three times this year.  Oops, only 2 of those did TD play in (not that it changed the outcome any).

And games in November mean as much as a predictor as games in March.

Also it never rains in the Pacific Northwest.


If you want to go back to your original analysis without wildly commenting about everything under the sun then use the last 10 games that the Spurs have played with Duncan in the lineup.  It will give a much better "preview" of how they will do in the playoffs then looking at their last ten games of which Duncan missed 7.

It is really simple logic that any 3rd grader could comprehend.

It has nothing to do with the Lakers at all.
It has nothing to do with homerism.
It has nothing to do with lack of objectivity (except maybe on your part).

Simple statement:  A "preview" of the Spurs playoff chances WITH DUNCAN cannot be based on how the team plays WITHOUT DUNCAN.

Or in Laker language....how a car runs with 3 tires will not predict how the car will run with 4 tires.

No comparisons with other teams.  No homerism.  Just plain objectivity.  Measuring anything's outcome without one variable fails to predict how that thing will work with that variable.
 

[Randy]

you don't want to be confused by the facts, do you?

Not any more than you.

 :ph34r:

You know, when I think of the word "objectivity," you fail to come to mind.  When I think of homerism, you do.

The fact is that both of us know that the Lakers are going to rely as heavily on their starting line-up as the Spurs rely on TD.  Do the Spurs have a better bench?  Sure -- because they have more role players.  Do they have a better team?  No, the Lakers have already proven that three times this year.  Oops, only 2 of those did TD play in (not that it changed the outcome any).

And games in November mean as much as a predictor as games in March.

Also it never rains in the Pacific Northwest.


If you want to go back to your original analysis without wildly commenting about everything under the sun then use the last 10 games that the Spurs have played with Duncan in the lineup.  It will give a much better "preview" of how they will do in the playoffs then looking at their last ten games of which Duncan missed 7.

It is really simple logic that any 3rd grader could comprehend.

It has nothing to do with the Lakers at all.
It has nothing to do with homerism.
It has nothing to do with lack of objectivity (except maybe on your part).

Simple statement:  A "preview" of the Spurs playoff chances WITH DUNCAN cannot be based on how the team plays WITHOUT DUNCAN.

Or in Laker language....how a car runs with 3 tires will not predict how the car will run with 4 tires.

No comparisons with other teams.  No homerism.  Just plain objectivity.  Measuring anything's outcome without one variable fails to predict how that thing will work with that variable.

The problem with your logic is that *IF* we only used the last ten games that TD played (to consider) then we need to make sure that every team they beat had their players at full health as well -- and then everybody else gets to give their input about looking to make sure that their squad was at full health as well in the last 10 games and when it comes down to it in the end -- it only makes a difference whether it ends up in the win or the loss column.  You can whine about the fact that TD went down (like we didn't hear that several years ago) but it doesn't change the outcome.  The don't list the NBA Champion with an asterisk just because the Spurs lost their main player.

[Lurker]

you don't want to be confused by the facts, do you?

Not any more than you.

 :ph34r:

You know, when I think of the word "objectivity," you fail to come to mind.  When I think of homerism, you do.

The fact is that both of us know that the Lakers are going to rely as heavily on their starting line-up as the Spurs rely on TD.  Do the Spurs have a better bench?  Sure -- because they have more role players.  Do they have a better team?  No, the Lakers have already proven that three times this year.  Oops, only 2 of those did TD play in (not that it changed the outcome any).

And games in November mean as much as a predictor as games in March.

Also it never rains in the Pacific Northwest.


If you want to go back to your original analysis without wildly commenting about everything under the sun then use the last 10 games that the Spurs have played with Duncan in the lineup.  It will give a much better "preview" of how they will do in the playoffs then looking at their last ten games of which Duncan missed 7.

It is really simple logic that any 3rd grader could comprehend.

It has nothing to do with the Lakers at all.
It has nothing to do with homerism.
It has nothing to do with lack of objectivity (except maybe on your part).

Simple statement:  A "preview" of the Spurs playoff chances WITH DUNCAN cannot be based on how the team plays WITHOUT DUNCAN.

Or in Laker language....how a car runs with 3 tires will not predict how the car will run with 4 tires.

No comparisons with other teams.  No homerism.  Just plain objectivity.  Measuring anything's outcome without one variable fails to predict how that thing will work with that variable.

The problem with your logic is that *IF* we only used the last ten games that TD played (to consider) then we need to make sure that every team they beat had their players at full health as well -- and then everybody else gets to give their input about looking to make sure that their squad was at full health as well in the last 10 games and when it comes down to it in the end -- it only makes a difference whether it ends up in the win or the loss column.  You can whine about the fact that TD went down (like we didn't hear that several years ago) but it doesn't change the outcome.  The don't list the NBA Champion with an asterisk just because the Spurs lost their main player.

Do you really have that little of a grasp of simple logic?

You used the last ten games to predict the playoffs.  However the team that played in 7 of those ten games is different from the one that will play in the playoffs.  Simple.

So let's take the Spurs out of the equation.

The Pacers in their last 10 games are 7-3.   They also have played well all year.  You could easily project that they will advance to the ECF or NBA Finals.

Now let's assume that O'Neal has a serious knee injury.  And that he will miss the playoffs.  Would that change your prediction?

Taking away (or adding) a key player changes the outcome.  Using a team's performance with the opposite condition as a predictor is faulty logic.

Comprehende??

[Laker Fan]

Then how come all we heard all season long was "wow, the Lakers suck" instead of hey your boys have been hammered by injuries. Not directing that at you specifically BBF, but people felt that the Lakers were not as good as advertised all year long when they virtually never put there key players on the floor together all season, and they still have a chance, albeit it a slim one, of actually overtaking Sacramento before the playoffs. To me, this says a lot about how much better of a team overall they are than just some overhyped advertisement for the hall of fame.

[Lurker]

Then how come all we heard all season long was "wow, the Lakers suck" instead of hey your boys have been hammered by injuries. Not directing that at you specifically BBF, but people felt that the Lakers were not as good as advertised all year long when they virtually never put there key players on the floor together all season, and they still have a chance, albeit it a slim one, of actually overtaking Sacramento before the playoffs. To me, this says a lot about how much better of a team overall they are than just some overhyped advertisement for the hall of fame.

Dan, I agree completely.  As I said in the playoff thread I consider the Lakers the favorite.  In many ways the injuries helped them by allowing the younger players time on the court.  I also believe that looking at the games between the Lakers & Spurs played in November have as much bearing on how they will play each other in the playoffs as Kerry's rhetoric impacts Bush's policies.

IMO the Spurs & Lakers will meet in the WCF unless they end up with the 2nd & 3rd seeds in which case they will meet in the second round.

After last night the Lakers & Spurs are each only 2 games out (in the loss column) of their division titles.  It is still possible for the Lakers & Spurs to end up as the 1 & 2 seeds.

 

[Laker Fan]

I can't remember who the columnist was, but he said essentially what you just did, it has given the Laker bench some seasoning and time on the court that will prove invaluable in the post season. With the Wolves losing again last night to a team they should beat every day of the week, allow me to back pedal on my previous stand and say yes, the Spurs, like the Lakers still have a slim shot at overtaking the division rival for the 1 and 2 seed. In both cases it seems unlikey although LA has the advantage of facing the Kings one more time. And the Spurs and Wolves both can do us a favor and bring their A game when the face the the boys from Cowtown in their final regular season meeting. We will definately try to help you out tomorrow night.