Got to make sure Dave sees this. Here is repost #1.
> > > Something Spoon, Iverson, Tim Thomas, etc... haven't seemed to be able
> > > to do...
> > Or Antoine Walker. Chris Webber HAS been to the playoff.
> > You are contradicting your earlier Walker > Webber stance. Fancy that.
> > Give Dave enough rope (or "data points") and he'll ***himself.
> Ahh.. but see, here is how you and I differ... Your ego won't let you admit
> when you are wrong...
happened (1976), Judden humbly admitted the error in Judden's way.
Let's look at those again:
Re: the ten best centers ever
Posted on: 1998/07/22
Because, your strawman argument of 'Dave's all stats' has never been true.
Stats are the one factual view of the world we have. It's a very good and
strong data point for analysis. But, that's all it is. I prefer Walker
at this point because:
o) He is more versatile. He regularly has played three positions for
o) He is more of a leader.
o) He is (thus far) much less of a headcase/problem child. Chrissy
has whined and moaned everywhere he's gone
o) He is more durable. Chrissy has been injury prone.
o) He is younger with more upside. I think we've seen all of
what Webber has to offer. While quite good, Walker has
Now, is Webber suddenly more versatile? Can he play more positions than
Walker? Nope. Is Webber more of a leader? Nope. Webber said he doesn't
even WANT to be in Sacramento. Is Webber less of a headcase/problem child?
Has his whining and moaning ceased? Nope. See above. Has Webber, in the
course of 5 weeks, completely overcome his "injury prone" reputation? Can 21
games (or ~5% of his career) overcome 5 seasons of developing an "injury
prone" rep? Nope. Has Walker suddenly aged drastically and surpassed Webber
in age? Nope. Has Walker's potential suddenly dried up in 5 weeks?
Obviously not, because in your response (to which Judden is now responding)
you say, "Walker has tons of talent"...present tense. D'OH!
Dave, your handpicked "data points" are not helping your cause. Please do
not lie to us and use a stats/Tendex argument, because Webber's Tendex was
clearly better back when your criteria was selected; and when we normalized
the numbers on a per-48 that you gave Mikkadonna in that thread, Webber had
better numbers. Please do not use this new argument "playoff appearances" as
an excuse either. This data (playoff games) hasn't changed since your July
22, 1998 post You rejected these "data points" and settled on the ones listed
above, when you chose Walker over Webber.
Don't claim you "changed your mind", because you didn't. You didn't change
your mind on the data points that you used to make your judgement. You
changed the data points, themselves. You changed the criteria. You used a
You claim Judden uses one on the Iverson/ballhog points issue, but Judden
cited a post from 1-1/2 years ago using the same standard Judden is now
citing (Ballhog Points Exception). And 1-1/2 years ago, Iverson didn't
qualify for the Ballhog Points Exception (Sixers had more scoring threats,
even if they were worse overall players -- Coleman, Stackhouse, Jackson), and
consequently, Iverson's ballhog points were below 1.77. Judden uses no
double-standard. Judden is citing an established postulate. You have created
new criteria as you go, to try and justify your change of prefernce in Webber
Judden is good and wise. Dave is not.
Judden told Mikey back in the July thread, and Judden reiterated again that if
one gives you enough rope, you'll hang yourself with it. Judden's words are
true, and this simply proves it.
Walker has tons of
but plays the game like too many of the new kids (re: Iverson), where
any active player in the NBA for a single season? The only active player
with more in a season was Dominique Wilkins (1049 in 1987-88) and of last
year's players, only jordon shot more bricks in a season (1181 in 1986-87).
What's the point? Last year, when you selected him over Webber, he had
demonstrated the same gunning tendencies you cite now. And as for young
players...well, Dominique and jordon aren't "new kids". Your lies
multiply upon themselves.
You didn't care about this "data point" last year, so why do you care
about it now? Because you'll change your criteria and use multiple
standards to support your argument at the time.
Judden once made a post and called it something like "Dave Meeks: the
Bill Clinton of RSBP". See why? You're rsbp's version of slick Willie.
Too bad Judden is calling you on your lies.
Chris Webber. The Monica Lewinski to Dave's rep.
last year, compared to this year, yet this "data point" didn't matter
to you last year.
Your cheap attempts to defame Iverson will not cover your lies and
double-standards. Your rep has been shreaded. Good luck putting it
You claim to have the humility to admit when you're wrong. Judden says you
use any stat and double-standard to support your argument at the time. Are
you humble enough to admit this is true, in the case of this argument? Can
you back up the checks that your big mouth wrote? Or will your big ego shine
through, and you'll tell more lies, ignore the post (don't worry, if your
server doesn't read this, Judden will keep re-posting it), or attempt to
change the topic?
Dave, the way Judden is kicking your [Greg Perry Word], you had better get a
change of address form and change your address from Ho-Jail to the Morgue,
cuz Judden is simply killing you on this topic. Your double-standard ways
have been exposed in such a way that even YOU cannot weasel your way out of
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://SportToday.org/; Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own