I never said you incorrectly assumed, I simply said you assume.
Yes, and so do you. It is
required in communication because
we are not all psychics therefore we must infer from context the meaning of others statements. When I properly inferred your reason for posting, you did your standard little juvenille dance and said I misinterpreted you, but then as always when asked to kindly clarify, you refused.
But by all means, keep editing your posts
I don't see how this is a sin. Especially to correct spelling errors and restructure organization for better reading and understanding. Considering how "assuming" is also now apparently a sin, it is best to make sure I'm clear.
But this is enough. Your obsession with me and desire to endlessly post about me, without actually discussing anything I've said outside of delving into a faux-postmodernist deconstruction on the nature of reality and communication, is cute but I'm sure everyone is tired of it. I'm far from interesting enough, and you're far from honest enough. Since you've argued your posts do not actually contain any meaning, even when they look like they're responding to the topic as in the thread. Therefore, I'm afraid, my dear, this dance is over, and I'll have to leave you on the dancefloor. I'm sure you can find another guy to take you home in the morning.
.....
Anyway, to someone who actually wants to discuss topics...my friend, Lax.
We will go nowhere further with this team as currently constructed, and I'm sick of watching us go out and lay eggs simply due to lack of focus and energy.
Well, this is clearly why we disagree. I don't think this team is done. They've been to the Eastern Conference Finals three years in a row. They lost in 2006 (McDyess was basically a sixth starter, and Evans didn't even crack 1200 minutes) and 2007 (Webber was a band-aid, Murray was a disaster) because they had no bench. This year they ran into a better team in the Celtics juggernaut, and in the playoffs Flip started to slowly do away with the bench that was so successful during the regular season.
Ratliff and Hunter were suddenly key players in the rotation for example. Both had as many or more fouls than points in the playoffs. And Flip clearly had no idea how to use Hunter, throwing him at Pierce for extended periods. While Hunter attempted to defend like he was 27 instead of 37. Games 3-4-5 from him were astounding, yet Flip kept throwing him out there in the clutch. I know Afflalo is nothing special, but he was a really good defender during the season, and it's not like he's worse offensively than Hunter. Nobody could guard Pierce (or would, in Hayes case...) but I think Afflalo would've done better than Hunter did on Allen, who just saw Hunter as a reason to drive.
Inconsistently?
He had some very lousy stretches there...
He also had plenty of fantastic ones. The biggest problem, for the young guys, was that the veterans outside of Rip and occasionally Billups (when on the floor with enough of them) wouldn't regularly pass to the younger guys. They didn't trust them, and Flip didn't either, so he didn't lay down the law and make the case that the bench is what wins titles. Indeed, Flip even went more to the veterans even if they stunk, especially with Prince and Wallace, the lousier they played, the more Flip kept playing them. Even though the team could've used Maxiell and Johnson out there even if only to force the Celtics to change up their defense.
Billups showed up for the last quarter in game 5. He played like horseshit in the first 3. Stuckey outplayed him, and we outplayed Boston when Stuckey was on the floor, if for no other reason than there was more hustle and energy. As soon as Billups came in we turned to shit.
This wasn't my recollection so I checked. Stuckey was on the floor without Billups during two Pistons runs, but he wasn't playing well during the first. Billups had a stint where he scored seven points and shot 59.5% with one turnover. He left the floor with the Pistons down one. Stuckey came in and had a stint where he scored three points on 30.7% shooting. He left for Billups with the team up four or five. Billups came in and shot 0/2 to end the half, one of which I believe was the last shot of the half, and the Celtics went on 14-1 run as Prince and Wallace also returned to the court.
Billups then scored nine points on 76.5% shooting in the third, with one turnover, but Rip scored only one point and Ratliff was on the court for almost the entire quarter. Celtics had 10-3 and 11-2 runs. Stuckey returned alongside Billups, scored two points on 50% shooting with a turnover and two fouls. Then Flip replaced Billups with Hunter for a seven minute stint. Stuckey got hot and scored eight points on 70.9% shooting staying in the entire fourth quarter. Billups returned for the final five minutes and scored nine points on 66.6% shooting. Wallace and Prince were also on the court, Wallace shot 25% in the fourth, and Prince took no shots. Rip was great though, nine points on 90% shooting and an offensive board. Him, Stuckey and McDyess, keyed a 10-1 run, and Billups joined Rip to key the final 9-2 run.
Yeah, the Pistons were down while Billups was out there, but it was more of a case, in my opinion, that Billups was keeping the Pistons barely alive, not killing them. I don't even see Stuckey or Billups as the problem in that game, but instead, again Prince and Wallace being on the floor even when they've stopped contributing. (We shouldn't forget that Garnett was going off in that game, so it's not like Sheed was even getting in his way.) Game Six is even better, during the Pistons 18-4 third quarter run, Stuckey came in, not for Billups, but for Wallace. (Admittingly, that was Prince's best quarter in the Conf. Finals, but he again disappeared in the fourth not even taking a shot in the last five and a half minutes.)
Fair enough in that sense. I would rather O'neal shooting a lower % though and have him closer to the basket.
Yeah, but the guy has taken 73%, 69%, 67% and 71% of his shots as jumpers outside the paint for his last four seasons. Shooting 36%, 37%, 38%, 40% on those. It's his few dunks (6% of attempts in three of the four years) and low number of post-ups that get him to even his low shooting percentage.
Some easy offensive putbacks would do us nicely.
Then O'Neal's not the man for you. He had two tips last year, eight tips the year before, eleven the year before that, and zero in 2004-05. Twenty-one in the last four years. You want someone like Jeff Foster, who took 64% of his shots inside and made 65.5%, while racking up seventeen tips this season. He's also the best offensive rebounder in the league over the last five years or so I believe.
He's not going to make $21 million though. Which probably helps contribute to the Pacers lack of desire to give him up. Even if his awesome play doesn't.
I don't think this was a good year to decide to blow things up completely. Depending on how Afflalo, Johnson, Stuckey, and Samb develop, along with their, Maxiell's and Herrmann's fitting into the rotation this team could have one of the best benches in the league next year with the same guys. With a coach willing to play young guys who play well over "proven" veterans, I think they would easily be contenders. It is why I prefer a smaller deal along the lines of a Wallace for Foster, or Hayes for J.R. Smith, (only the latter of which I consider realistic) than a major trade that shifts the entire team for second or third tier stars (would the latter be faux-stars?) like Anthony and O'Neal.
yuck...
