I guess that means when the Lakers beat Utah at Utah, 96-81 and Kobes Bryant did not play, that means (using your illogic [and Joes?]) that the Lakers do not need Kobes Bryant to win a championship. I mean Utah is one of the best teams in the NBA at home, and the Lakers beat them without Kobes Bryant playing a single minute. Are you going to lie and say the Lakers did not win the game?
Actually, I believe that the PROPER thing to say would be that the Lakers beat Utah without Kobe Bryant.
You, of course, would NORMALLY simply draw the conclusion that the Lakers are better without Kobe than they are with him. You've done that several times. Even said that Kobe isn't the team's most valuable player (a point that, given the proper ground rules for debate, I might be willing to entertain). Talked about how over-hyped he is. How (pick-some-other-2-guard) is much, much better.
In this case, I've just done exactly what you typically do, except I've done it with a player *YOU* like.
What's the matter? Don't like it when someone uses your own style of drawing conclusions against you? Extrapolating on ONE game, ONE comment, etc., and taking that to the nth degree?
Here's the *REAL* killer, Reality - I actually *LIKE* Blair. Think he's somewhat useful. Not ready to declare him a player with "All Star potential," and don't really see how anyone is ready to make that leap based on what we've seen so far. (Makes the name "Dalem-Blair" a lot funnier, too, because I remember how often Dalembert was overrated - including by me!)
You did this same exact thing with Oberto a few years back. WayOut called him "the next future journeyman center." You defended Oberto as if life itself depended on it, and pretty much poisoned a lot of us on the board to Oberto. Now, you go back and say, "Well, it was just *THAT* particular year." The rest of us remember how during that one particular year, you were hyping Oberto as a long-term solution. You simply can't say, "I was wrong about Oberto." And what's worse, you simply try to find other folks' predictions that were wrong, and try to use those as a basis for saying, "See, you're wrong about this, so you'll be wrong about the other." And when defending your own predictions, you take stretches that you HOPE the rest of us won't recognize.
Let's talk about that San An not being a playoff team. As far as predictions go, that's a strong prediction. San An has been a playoff team for years. Why not this year? Have they really fallen that far? A bold statement - and one that, in most cases, I would look at with a degree of respect. But then, the thought occurs to me....
...WHEN did you make this prediction, Reality? Was it in preseason? Was it in the thread a few months back? And believe it or not, this is a *REALLY* important question....
...because one of the reasons you gave for the reason it's not going to come true is because YAO MING has been out for the year. Well...that was actually *LAST* *YEAR''S* news. Like many, I thought Ming would be back late in the season, but last year, folks were talking how his injury was career-endangering. Using Yao as a reason doesn't pass the smell test.
And this is the same thing with Chris Paul, depending upon *WHEN* you made the prediction.
And here's the truly damning thing. Re-read this thread:
http://forums.phillyarena.com/index.php?topic=5697.0. On this "bold" Oklahoma City prediction of 50 games won...where did you make the prediction? Nowhere in this thread to you say, "I think they're going to." No, instead you say, "Either way the future looks bright for OKC." We wait until it's closer, that you imply that your message in JUNE OF LAST YEAR was that they *WOULD*.
One of the reasons people respect what I write is that I don't hold back and say things like, "Could OKCity jump to 50 wins next season?" and refer to that as a prediction. I make statements like: "No. OKC isn't even a playoff team next year. Maybe not for several. I still think this is a team in danger of collapsing." There is absolutely *NO* *WAY* I can slink out of that statement. I chose to be bold. And I'll be wrong on at least three counts, if not four (they're a playoff team, it's not been several years, they're not collapsing, and they may *STILL* win 50 games). When I say something, I say it boldly, and I mean what I say. And I accept the fact that I'm going to be wrong a lot of times. Unlike some, I don't have a problem with being wrong.
What's even more, I'm going to be honest and ADMIT that I didn't see OKC making this kind of jump. I'll out-and-out admit it is absolutely shocking to me. I didn't trust their coaching staff (Scott Brooks?), I didn't trust their young player core, and I still don't understand how they can withstand a challenge on the front line. 4th in rebounding, 4th in rebounding differential? *HOW* IN THE WORLD? Looking back, if I had to make the prediction over, I'D STILL MAKE THE SAME ONE. What OKC has done is, in my mind, absolutely shocking, which is why I have Durant as my runner-up for MVP. (Now, of course. Certainly not in preseason.)
When I argue my point, most people will look and say, although wrong, my prediction was *REASONABLE*. Sure, I overlooked a lot of basics, such as "young players will develop," and "Durant is blossoming," and "they finished the season pretty well last year." And they respect the fact that I was bold in my prediction. And rightly so, the next time there's a developing young team, finishing the last season strongly, with a potential break-out superstar, and I say, "They aren't even a playoff team next year. Maybe not for several. I still think this is a team in danger of collapsing," folks are going to recall this prediction, and RIGHTLY ask me why the new team is different from OKC. And that's fair.
Your "predictions" are ones where you've tried to make them late, back out of them, hedge your bets...and you wonder why people don't take them seriously. When you're challenged on the wrong ones, you back off of them, and try to re-write the history. In other words - people don't trust you to play fair. And that's something you need to change.
