PDA

View Full Version : This asskicking deserves a watch...Suns and Nets


EricaLubarsky
03-27-2006, 08:08 PM
...

dirno2000
03-27-2006, 08:13 PM
Glad to see I'm not the only one enjoying this...it's like the Nets are taking turns scoring.

...and Amare looks horrible. Seriously, he looks like Webber laboring up and down the floor. This is the beginning of a 4 games in 5 nights stretch and I can't imagine that he's going to make all four.

MavKikiNYC
03-27-2006, 08:15 PM
Nets are putting together a pretty impressive string of performances, having beaten Detroit, Dallas and now Phoenix.

Odd--they don't look that strong, and they're not going to be a strong defensive club, but they can put out a pretty tough-to-defend starting 5.

Difficult to know if they're for real, or just pushing through an impressive streak.

Bookit
03-27-2006, 08:19 PM
The Nets D is impressive. The Suns have scored 45 points with 10 minutes left in the fourth.

dirno2000
03-27-2006, 08:21 PM
This reminds me of our first game with Det. Everything the Nets throw up goes in and everything PXH throws up bounces off the rim...that's if they don't turn it over first.

With Kirstic playing this well they'll be a tough out in the playoffs. They don't play much defense on most nights but they do have players capeable of playing D when they want to.

twelli
03-27-2006, 08:21 PM
The AMARE Effect.

That must hurt Nash's MVP chances.

He's been dirkVpeeed...

EricaLubarsky
03-27-2006, 08:26 PM
Per local media, lowest scoring game by a Suns team: 69

capitalcity
03-27-2006, 08:30 PM
Steve Nash makes his teammates better.

The Crippler
03-27-2006, 08:37 PM
amare makes his teammates worse.

The Crippler
03-27-2006, 08:42 PM
I would love to punch D'antoni in his smug face.

V2M
03-27-2006, 08:57 PM
What makes this all the more incredulous is that the Nets were on their 2nd night of a B2B (beating Detroit last night!) while the Suns are coming off a day's rest.

Thank you, Nets... you're now my favorite team in the East! :)

bernardos70
03-27-2006, 09:02 PM
This just in: ESPN says Carter is in the mix for MVP.

chumdawg
03-27-2006, 09:09 PM
This makes the baby Jesus cry.

u2sarajevo
03-27-2006, 09:15 PM
The Nets kicked the crap out of the Suns!!!! (my apologies in advance to chum)

bernardos70
03-27-2006, 09:16 PM
Black Jesus = 0 points in 14 minutes. He's back!

V2M
03-27-2006, 09:17 PM
Nash: 26min 0-5 0pts
Amare: 14min 0-6 0pts

Has it ever happened before that the two best players on a team score a combined 0pts in a game?

Btw, Tim Thomas: 24min 0-6 0pts

u2sarajevo
03-27-2006, 09:21 PM
It's okay... I have it on good authority that MVP's sometimes go 0-5.

MavsX
03-27-2006, 09:30 PM
thank you suns

MavsX
03-27-2006, 09:30 PM
for losing..suckers!

orangedays
03-27-2006, 09:32 PM
Holy Batman...110-72 Nets?

HA!

All because of Steve Nash.

Drbio
03-27-2006, 09:34 PM
The poor media will be tripping all over themselves tonight. Poor poor media.

dude1394
03-27-2006, 09:35 PM
I know it doesn't mean much but the suns are about to be passed by miami for 5th best record in the league. Bragging rights, but they are definitely fading, .500 ball in last 10 games. That's with GETTING people back while the dirkster just keeps putting the team on his back.

rakesh.s
03-27-2006, 09:38 PM
amare 0 points? wow..last year, we were wondering if he could go a game without dunking, but laying an egg?..wow

What's in the water in New Jersey anyway? They're making other teams' offenses look like ass.

orangedays
03-27-2006, 09:47 PM
What's in the water in New Jersey anyway? They're making other teams' offenses look like ass.

Maybe we should ask DeusDeOmini.

G-Man
03-27-2006, 09:48 PM
I blamed the Mavs loss on not having our 2 guys who are best at defending carter. What's the Suns excuse?

dude1394
03-27-2006, 09:49 PM
I blamed the Mavs loss on not having our 2 guys who are best at defending carter. What's the Suns excuse?

They don't have anyone to defend anyone.

birdsanctuary
03-27-2006, 09:51 PM
Amare is definitely NOT the same guy who suited up last year. They should have followed Stein's advice and kept him out the whole year. His explosiveness is gone and against a strong quick center he's history. Suns will still be a force to recon with, but as we get closer to playoff time I marvel at how the chips are beginning to fall.

Maybe this is the Mav's year? Any word on Jho and Griffin for tomorrows game?

EricaLubarsky
03-27-2006, 09:57 PM
His explosiveness is gone and against a strong quick center he's history.

strong, quick center? Krstic worked Amare.

Tokey41
03-27-2006, 09:58 PM
Yeah, I totally saw this coming... now lets take some of that MVP spotlight off of Nash please?

sike
03-27-2006, 10:01 PM
This makes the baby Jesus cry.
But Jesus loves it when the Suns lose....

sike
03-27-2006, 10:02 PM
Yeah, I totally saw this coming... now lets take some of that MVP spotlight off of Nash please?
lets just see if anyone....ANYONE....mentions this as a poor showing that shows that the Suns are not a elite team....

bernardos70
03-27-2006, 10:08 PM
It's okay... I have it on good authority that MVP's sometimes go 0-5.

It is also customary of MVP types to mail in games.

u2sarajevo
03-27-2006, 10:21 PM
I also heard that MVP's can still be MVP front-runners when their team goes 5-5.

So.... it's all good.

orangedays
03-27-2006, 10:31 PM
Who do you guys keep hearing this garbage from? Stop watching the TNT Halftime Show. :D

Thespiralgoeson
03-27-2006, 10:33 PM
Didn't see this one, but looking at the box score and... damn! Phoenix is fading away quickly.

And what's the deal with New Jersey lately? Seriously, they're looking like legit contenders.

dude1394
03-27-2006, 10:36 PM
Didn't see this one, but looking at the box score and... damn! Phoenix is fading away quickly.

And what's the deal with New Jersey lately? Seriously, they're looking like legit contenders.

Good I can't wait to get another shot at them in the playoffs.

sike
03-27-2006, 10:37 PM
Good I can't wait to get another shot at them in the playoffs.
and bingo was his nameO

chumdawg
03-27-2006, 11:10 PM
Good I can't wait to get another shot at them in the playoffs.Phoenix? ...Or that shot we should have got against Jersey?

Sikey, the baby Jesus doesn't like it when the West loses to the East. It's not the way he drew it up.

sike
03-27-2006, 11:13 PM
Jesus, baby or all growns up, loves it when the Mavs enemy goes down in flaming fury....

man, you need to get to know Jesus!

dude1394
03-27-2006, 11:14 PM
Phoenix? ...Or that shot we should have got against Jersey?

Sikey, the baby Jesus doesn't like it when the West loses to the East. It's not the way he drew it up.

Jersey...phoenix doesn't really worry me.

Dtownsfinest
03-27-2006, 11:23 PM
Damn. New Jersey is playing great ball right now. Amare's gonna come back slow. I think everyone expected that. Because he went scoreless against a New Jersey team doesn't mean a damn thing to me. If this is how he's going to play in the playoffs than he's going to do more hurting than helping for the Suns.

chumdawg
03-27-2006, 11:23 PM
Jesus, baby or all growns up, loves it when the Mavs enemy goes down in flaming fury....

man, you need to get to know Jesus!Jesus is, if nothing else, a gentleman. He prefers to face his opponent at full strength, so that both worthy foes can hold their heads high honor when the duel is done.

At least...I think that was Jesus.

Dude-- Wouldn't it be poetic justice if the Mavs oust the Spurs on their way to a smashing of the Nets, just as it should have been three long years ago?

sike
03-27-2006, 11:26 PM
"At least...I think that was Jesus."

I think you have Jesus and Samurai mixed up ;)

unless you think Jesus is Samurai....that could be a sweet movie.

sike
03-28-2006, 12:05 AM
oh yea....and the Wiz beat the Warriors by 18 tonight........*sigh

orangedays
03-28-2006, 02:03 AM
Checked the box for the Nets-Suns game. Reminded me a little bit of the Steve Nash of old. Obviously it's an extreme example, but I think that we'll see more down-to-earth lines from Nash once the Suns face off against the Kings and Mike "Nash-killer" Bibby in the post-season. The Suns are toast.

chumdawg
03-28-2006, 02:11 AM
If it "reminded [you] of the Steve Nash of old," then you are a band wagon jumper of the highest degree. I'm sorry, but there is no other way to characterize that. Anyone who was around the whole time recognizes no resemblance between that line and the Steve Nash of old. I admire your love of the current Mavs incarnation, but your lack of respect for the Mavs of years gone by rubs this long-time fan the wrong way.

Check the box when he goes off for 20-something and shoves it up the Mavs' ass, like he's been doing since he left here.

orangedays
03-28-2006, 03:25 AM
I may not have watched Mark Aguirre play but I've been around long enough to remember (and be reminded of) games like these:

2001 - Western Conference Semifinals

G1: Spurs 94 - 78 Mavs
2 pts (0-4), 6 asts, 2 rebs

G2: Spurs 100 - 86 Mavs
10 pts (4-9), 7 asts, 4 rebs

G3: Spurs 104 - 90 Mavs
11 pts (4-12), 4 asts, 3 rebs

G4: Mavs 112 - 108 Spurs
10 pts (4-11), 14 asts, 5 rebs

G5: Spurs 105 - 87 Mavs
11 pts (4-7), 3 asts, 2 rebs

Mavs eliminated 4-1

2002 - Western Conference Semifinals

G1: Kings 108 - 91 Mavs
12 pts (4-12), 5 asts, 5 rebs

G5: Kings 114 - 101 Mavs
12 pts (4-9), 9 asts, 4 rebs

Mavs eliminated 4-1

2003 - Western Conference Finals

G2: Spurs 119 - 106 Mavs
12 pts (4-11), 8 asts, 4 rebs

G3: Spurs 96 - 83 Mavs
10 pts (4-9), 9 asts, 4 rebs

G5: Mavs 103 - 91 Spurs
14 pts (5-11), 6 asts, 4 rebs

G6: Spurs 90 - 78 Mavs
6 pts (3-10), 11 asts, 4 rebs

Mavs eliminated 4-2

2004 - First Round

G1: Kings 116 - 105 Mavs
13 pts (5-14), 8 asts, 2 rebs

G2: Kings 83 - 79 Mavs
13 pts (6-20), 9 asts, 5 rebs

G3: Mavs 104 - 79 Kings
7 pts (3-6), 5 asts, 5 rebs

G4: Kings 94 - 92 Mavs
11 pts (4-11), 9 asts, 7 rebs

Nash upped his production heroically in G5, as all of our players did. But we lost a Sacramento series 4-1 that you know and I know we could have won. Resultant? Sufficient doubt was planted within the organization of the Mavericks' (in)ability to move forward with Nash as our PG and we let him walk. Look, I loved Stevie as much as anybody (you included) when he was here. But Steve didn't return that love chum - he crashed and burned when we needed him most - consistently. It's not a lack of respect on my part, it's a recognition of the reality that Nash just did not cut it for us.

Over 4 seasons, from 2001-2004, the Mavericks exited the playoffs to the tune of 4-1, 4-1, 4-2, 4-1. Look at Nash's stats chum, do they look at all familiar? (Remembering, obviously, that I had stated that Nash's NJ line was an extreme example). I have listed 15 out of the 21 playoff games Nash has played in since 2001. No 0 pts, 0 asts, but you do not have much recourse if you're going to try and argue that Nash's numbers don't look downright awful.

Your status as a Nash apologist is well-documented and you can label me a band wagon jumper all you like - but history supports me in demonstrating that when the spotlight's on and the season is on the line - Steve Nash will fail. He'll put up decent numbers in the regular season, and he might even do well in a playoff game or two...but you put a Jason Kidd or Mike Bibby on him, and you will watch a disappearing act worthy of Vegas. The Suns steamrolled through last year's playoffs because they played Memphis (Jason Williams?) and Dallas (Jet?). It's not surprising they were on cruise control. But chum, the sooner you realize that Nash leaving is a positive, the sooner you can stop lamenting his absence and start focusing on the fact that this Mavs squad is better off as a result.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Steve Nash leaving the Dallas Mavericks could very well be a key reason for our winning an NBA Championship in the very near future. And I will call it now; you wait and see - if the Suns play the Kings in the First Round, they lose the series. Mike Bibby will absolutely smother Steve Nash and we will all be reminded of why (and be thankful of the fact that) Steve Nash is no longer a Dallas Maverick.

Thespiralgoeson
03-28-2006, 04:02 AM
Over 4 seasons, from 2001-2004, the Mavericks exited the playoffs to the tune of 4-1, 4-1, 4-2, 4-1.

You know, I already knew that, but I never really thought about it. That's pretty bad. Ugh, no wonder the Mavs got no respect. I think you're being just a little harsh on Nash, Orange, but I agree in principle. He did have a way of being quite inconsistent during the playoffs.

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that Nash always fails in the playoffs, at least not anymore. At the end of the regular season last year, I really didn't feel that he deserved to be the MVP at all, but he won me over in the playoffs in a big way. He just tore us a new one. That buzzer beating three in game 6 still haunts me. I think he was without question the best player in the playoffs last year. Yeah the ended up getting whooped by the Spurs, but I think that was the result of the Spurs simply being the better team rather than any choking on Nash's part.

But again, I agree with you in principal in that I feel that Nash's departure was ultimately in our best interests, and obviously his. I've said this before, and I know most people around here don't seem to agree with me, but I honestly feel that Dirk would not be quite the player he is now if Nash hadn't left.

orangedays
03-28-2006, 04:42 AM
I agree with you - a topic I chose not to touch on in my previous post in favor of brevity is the obvious fact that Phoenix Nash is a completely different player from Dallas Nash. I admit I was harsh on Nash with regards to the 'always failing' - chum pushed my buttons a bit with the whole band wagon deal. In my post I was focusing entirely on Nash's tenure with the Mavs (and when I said failure, I meant failure with the Mavs, not the Suns). Also, I didn't mean to come across as shortchanging Nash's accomplishments in last year's playoffs - the guy took it up a notch and demonstrated why he was All-NBA First Team - no doubt in my mind (the story would have been different, in my opinion, had he played against Bibby, or gotten the chance to play against Kidd).

But, he didn't do that (or anything near that for that matter) while he was with us. His best efforts? 2003 - All-NBA Third Team, 2002 - All-NBA Third Team. And a slew of ignomious playoff exits as I have outlined above. It frustrates the hell out of me that Nash didn't perform with the Mavs as he does today with the Suns, but I also think that it is pointless for people to point to what he has accomplished today and say "if only..." Nash had the opportunity to do what he is doing with the Suns...with the Mavs. He was here for 6 seasons. He came into his own in 2000-01 and already had Dirty and Filthy running full-steam alongside him. And yet he waited until he hit 30 to have the two best years of his career. Figures huh?

The old Steve Nash was good, but by no stretch of the imagination was he great.

Thespiralgoeson
03-28-2006, 05:03 AM
Oh I whole-heartedly agree. I really can't help but wonder why Nash is on another level in Phoenix than he was here in Dallas.

Bookit
03-28-2006, 08:35 AM
Nash can't defend. This is the problem. However, it is rare that you can find a guy that can shoot absolutely lights out and have the ability to make spectacular passes as well. He is fun to watch that is for sure.

chumdawg
03-28-2006, 11:47 AM
Over those four years of playoff games, the guy averaged 15.9 points, 7.5 assists, and 3.7 rebounds. I'm not sure I understand your beef with that.

On the series results, is it your contention that Nash is more responsible for those than anyone else, anyone else like...say...Dirk?

Five-ofan
03-28-2006, 12:32 PM
Nash was a hell of alot more responsible for those losses than dirk was. Just going from memory i believe dirk tied the nba record with a streak of 4 straight games of 30+points and 15 boards though one of them was the 42 and 18 game against SA that we lost. Murph you are the king of the dirk playoff stats and im gonna guess that you have them saved since you bring them up all the time, you feel like posting them again?

Milles
03-28-2006, 01:39 PM
Regarding the game last night, I read that was the first time in 5 years that Kidd's team has beaten Nash's team. I found it interesting that during that period, Kidd was always said to be the best PG and yet, he had no wins during that time against Nash.

In one week Kidd got a win vs the Mavericks and a win vs Nash.

orangedays
03-28-2006, 01:56 PM
Over those four years of playoff games, the guy averaged 15.9 points, 7.5 assists, and 3.7 rebounds. I'm not sure I understand your beef with that.

On the series results, is it your contention that Nash is more responsible for those than anyone else, anyone else like...say...Dirk?

chum, the original argument was not about series averages - it was about your contention that I was "a band wagon jumper of the highest degree," because (and this is the fact pattern):

(1) I stated that Nash's N.J. line reminded me "a little bit of the Steve Nash of old," referring to the fact that I recalled games in the past where Nash's line had been mediocre if not downright bad.
(2) You called me out and stated that there is "no resemblance between that line and the Steve Nash of old".
(3) I provided evidence specifically from the playoffs (not the regular season, where the games do not matter) of games where Nash had lines that are irrefutably reminiscent of Nash's N.J. line.

That's my beef.

George Gervin
03-28-2006, 02:11 PM
chum, the original argument was not about series averages - it was about your contention that I was "a band wagon jumper of the highest degree," because (and this is the fact pattern):

(1) I stated that Nash's N.J. line reminded me "a little bit of the Steve Nash of old," referring to the fact that I recalled games in the past where Nash's line had been mediocre if not downright bad.
(2) You called me out and stated that there is "no resemblance between that line and the Steve Nash of old".
(3) I provided evidence specifically from the playoffs (not the regular season, where the games do not matter) of games where Nash had lines that are irrefutably reminiscent of Nash's N.J. line.

That's my beef.


1. Can't you cherry pick games to prove any point you want about a player? doesn't cevery player have a bad line now and then?


2. It would be more fair to compare his avg as opposed to his bad game..to then search out other bad games..

3. providing evidence means a full picture not what you want people to see..

old man

orangedays
03-28-2006, 02:17 PM
1. Can't you cherry pick games to prove any point you want about a player? doesn't cevery player have a bad line now and then?


2. It would be more fair to compare his avg as opposed to his bad game..to then search out other bad games..

3. providing evidence means a full picture not what you want people to see..

old man

(1) 15 out of 21 playoff games from 2000-04 is not cherry-picking. We call that history GG.

(2) The discussion was not about averages, the discussion is about a single game (Suns v. Nets) reminding me about other...single games.

(3) The evidence provided covered 71% of the playoff games Nash played in from the 2000-04 seasons. That's...a big percentage. Get it?

(4) Again, I am 22-years old. Frightening, isn't it, how much smarter than you I am already? Extrapolate that...damn...you're f*cked. Now just say it...out loud...say..."I wanna be orangedays." C'moooon...

George Gervin
03-28-2006, 02:26 PM
(1) 15 out of 21 playoff games from 2000-04 is not cherry-picking. We call that history GG.

(2) The discussion was not about averages, the discussion is about a single game (Suns v. Nets) reminding me about other...single games.

(3) The evidence provided covered 71% of the playoff games Nash played in from the 2000-04 seasons. That's...a big percentage. Get it?

(4) Again, I am 22-years old. Frightening, isn't it, how much smarter than you I am already? Extrapolate that...damn...you're f*cked. Now just say it...out loud...say..."I wanna be orangedays." C'moooon...



right.... frightening that you actually believe that.. what you want to be is accepted..but you cannot find that here ..by the way your a young guy that has alot to learn..lesson 1 whenever you think you've firgured something out you then realize you never knew anything at all to begin with..i chalk up your silliness to you being immature..

orangedays
03-28-2006, 02:29 PM
And to answer Five-o's question:

From the 2001-2004 playoffs:

Dirty
25.9 ppg (.455 FG%, .420 3p%), 11.1 rpg, 1.8 apg, 1 bpg

Filthy
18.9 ppg (.415 FG%, .379 3P%), 5.2 rpg, 3.1 apg

orangedays
03-28-2006, 02:30 PM
right.... frightening that you actually believe that.. what you want to be is accepted..but you cannot find that here ..by the way your a young guy that has alot to learn..lesson 1 whenever you think you've firgured something out you then realize you never knew anything at all to begin with..i chalk up your silliness to you being immature..

You believe that in light of my facts, and your conjecture...that I am being silly?

*nods*

Fair enough. Can't argue with what you've got.

George Gervin
03-28-2006, 02:36 PM
You believe that in light of my facts, and your conjecture...that I am being silly?

*nods*

Fair enough. Can't argue with what you've got.


your cherry picked stats? comparing one bad to another bad game? i bet i can find a couple of good nash games and blow your petty argument out of the water.. but why try you know everything already.. i don't waste my time arguing because that means neither side is willing to reason with the other..so you go right on and argue with yourself silly boy.. please save the your newly learned vocabulary for someone it may impress..

sixeightmkw
03-28-2006, 02:49 PM
I think GG got kicked off the Spurs forum for being a jackass and had to turn to the Mavs website.

George Gervin
03-28-2006, 02:53 PM
I think GG got kicked off the Spurs forum for being a jackass and had to turn to the Mavs website.


actually my username is george gervin's afro on spurstalk.com (as i hear orangedays run to the website)... but don't let anything in the way of truth get in your way

mavtalk definition of jackass-
1. not a mavs homer
2. does not believe dirk is the best player ever
3. don't buy that the media conspiracy between the mavs and the national media
4. anything derogatory concerning the mavs..

then find me guilty!

sixeightmkw
03-28-2006, 03:08 PM
Of course 99% of the people here love the Mavs and are Homers, just Like you are probably a Spur Homer. Nothing bad about that.
No, I doubt most of the people on here don't think Dirk is the best player ever, but he sure could be one of the best once his career is over. He is the most amazing player I have seen in a long time.
I believe there is something with the media, not a conspiracy, but a lack of respect, which I understand since they haven't won the whole thing yet. But how many teams have won the whole thing over the last few years and get so much more positive media attention, eh em Miami.
And just read the game day threads when the Mavs play like crap. We are our biggest critics.

George Gervin
03-28-2006, 03:13 PM
Of course 99% of the people here love the Mavs and are Homers, just Like you are probably a Spur Homer. Nothing bad about that.
No, I doubt most of the people on here don't think Dirk is the best player ever, but he sure could be one of the best once his career is over. He is the most amazing player I have seen in a long time.
I believe there is something with the media, not a conspiracy, but a lack of respect, which I understand since they haven't won the whole thing yet. But how many teams have won the whole thing over the last few years and get so much more positive media attention, eh em Miami.
And just read the game day threads when the Mavs play like crap. We are our biggest critics.



you know the irony of all of the banter that has occurred here the last couple of days i have never been disrespectful towards the mavs. i have said since day one they, mavs have as good a chance of anyone of winning the title.. and this may be thier year to get past the spurs..

chumdawg
03-28-2006, 03:44 PM
chum, the original argument was not about series averages - it was about your contention that I was "a band wagon jumper of the highest degree," because (and this is the fact pattern):

(1) I stated that Nash's N.J. line reminded me "a little bit of the Steve Nash of old," referring to the fact that I recalled games in the past where Nash's line had been mediocre if not downright bad.
(2) You called me out and stated that there is "no resemblance between that line and the Steve Nash of old".
(3) I provided evidence specifically from the playoffs (not the regular season, where the games do not matter) of games where Nash had lines that are irrefutably reminiscent of Nash's N.J. line.

That's my beef.Yes, I understand that was your original observation. I found it ridiculous then, and I find it even more ridiculous now that you have posted the stats you found. Sorry, maybe it's just me, but those numbers don't remind me much of zero points scored. They aren't in the same ballbark. Hell, they aren't even in the same sport!

If you are going to see those playoff lines as "irrefutably reminiscent" of his zero-point NJ line...well, we just aren't ever going to have a fruitful discussion.

Thespiralgoeson
03-28-2006, 05:51 PM
Chum, I think the only thing Orange meant at all was that Nash is a better player now than he was as a Maverick. I think we can all agree to that, yes?

chumdawg
03-28-2006, 06:27 PM
I guess it is true--and quite remarkable, at that--that the guy is actually improving as he ages, counter to what Mark Cuban expected. But still and all, I don't think that's all that OD meant. I think he meant that he sucked back then just like he sucked last night.

orangedays
03-28-2006, 06:37 PM
I guess it is true--and quite remarkable, at that--that the guy is actually improving as he ages, counter to what Mark Cuban expected. But still and all, I don't think that's all that OD meant. I think he meant that he sucked back then just like he sucked last night.

chum, take the time to reread my original post:

Reminded me a little bit of the Steve Nash of old. Obviously it's an extreme example.

What about that don't you understand? Did I say he sucked? No. I said...very clearly...that the line Nash exhibited was an extreme example of what he has done in the past.

This is not even a matter of opinion, the discussion has yet to even progress to that point. This is a matter of semantics and of your inability or refusal to understand what I am saying. Come on chum, you're better than that.

2 pts on 0-4 shooting? 6 pts on 3-10 shooting? Those aren't in the same ballpark? Please.

orangedays
03-28-2006, 06:39 PM
your cherry picked stats? comparing one bad to another bad game? i bet i can find a couple of good nash games and blow your petty argument out of the water.. but why try you know everything already.. i don't waste my time arguing because that means neither side is willing to reason with the other..so you go right on and argue with yourself silly boy.. please save the your newly learned vocabulary for someone it may impress..

Dude, you are the very definition of a clown. You don't waste your time arguing? That's all you've been doing with your time.

Just like high school...nobody likes you. Scat.

chumdawg
03-28-2006, 07:08 PM
2 pts on 0-4 shooting? 6 pts on 3-10 shooting? Those aren't in the same ballpark? Please.Well, I guess it's a case of selective memory, then. If a guy averaged 15 or 16 points in the playoffs, and also was not known to routinely score 30+ in those games, it's reasonable to assume that two- and six-point outings are outliers. And the outliers don't generally form the impressions you remember about a player.

But even moreso than that, the impression I got from your post wasn't that you were talking about the playoffs in specific--since the NJ game wasn't a playoff game, especially. You may be right that this is a misunderstanding caused by differing semantics, but I remain painfully aware that there is a considerable, and often quite vocal, contingent that likes to disparage Nash now that he is gone. Kinda like when the hot chic dumps you and you tell yourself, not to mention anyone else who will listen, that she wasn't that great anyway.

But yes, you did say it was an extreme example. Still, I found the observation disrespectful to not only Nash but also to every Maverick and every Mavericks team from the Nash days. I prefer to hold franchise stalwarts in higher regard.

orangedays
03-28-2006, 09:02 PM
Well, I guess it's a case of selective memory, then. If a guy averaged 15 or 16 points in the playoffs, and also was not known to routinely score 30+ in those games, it's reasonable to assume that two- and six-point outings are outliers. And the outliers don't generally form the impressions you remember about a player.

But even moreso than that, the impression I got from your post wasn't that you were talking about the playoffs in specific--since the NJ game wasn't a playoff game, especially. You may be right that this is a misunderstanding caused by differing semantics, but I remain painfully aware that there is a considerable, and often quite vocal, contingent that likes to disparage Nash now that he is gone. Kinda like when the hot chic dumps you and you tell yourself, not to mention anyone else who will listen, that she wasn't that great anyway.

But yes, you did say it was an extreme example. Still, I found the observation disrespectful to not only Nash but also to every Maverick and every Mavericks team from the Nash days. I prefer to hold franchise stalwarts in higher regard.

Look, simply put, the 0 pts, 0 asts line reminded me of Nash's mortality. You will note that I was very careful to say that "it reminded me a little bit" of Mavs Nash and that it was an extreme example. Yes, 10-11 pts aren't 0 pts, but c'mon you can't tell me you don't see what I'm trying to say: that the shooting star that is Steve Nash "MVP" was brought hurtling down to earth that one night. We saw in place of the unstoppable offensive juggernaut the media lick their chops over, a too-slow, defensively-inept PG who had his hands bound and couldn't lead his team to victory despite his best efforts. THAT is what reminded me of the old Steve Nash. We can argue over the stats all night long and probably never see eye-to-eye, but I hope I've clarified what I am saying.

Today, when Nash scores 10-11 pts, it's considered an off-night. That was the norm in the games that I cited - games that are representative of Nash's performance with the Mavs (15 of the 21 playoff games he's been in for us since 2001). What would people be saying about Nash if he averaged 15-16 a night for the Suns? Whenever he went off for 20+ pts or 10+ asts with us, it was a monster night - now that he's in Phoenix, that has become the norm. My impression of Nash while he was here is that he was a good PG - comparable to players such as Jason Kidd, Mike Bibby - but since he's left he's taken it to another level. He was not great here. He wasn't a 0 pts, 0 asts player, but neither was he a 25 pts, 10 asts player.

Furthermore, while I am decidedly of the mindset that we are better off without Nash, I have certainly never "disparage(d) Nash now that he is gone". Don't include me in the Nash-bashing set. There is little, if any, point in debating the merits of a player who is no longer here - it's a waste of time and energy. Any fan would have to be ignorant of basketball not to recognize the fact that Nash was a good player - and in his current incarnation, a great one. But that doesn't change the fact that this Mavs team is a stronger team and a more competitive team in his absence - an assertion that I hope we prove to people like yourself in the coming weeks.

Your hot chick analogy doesn't fit. Nash was cute when he was here, maybe that track girl who hadn't filled out yet. But by no stretch of the imagination was he hot. After Nash left for Phoenix - he got a boob job, he changed his hairstyle, maybe got highlights, he got a tan...whatever...he's hot Now, he wasn't then. Nash is the girl I dumped because I thought she was too plain and I could do better, who then came back with a pair of double-D's and made me regret ever leaving her. Nash is our very own "She's All That".

I get that you're a big Nash fan. No problem - but don't let that cloud how you read and interpret my post.

chumdawg
03-28-2006, 09:35 PM
Except that it is generally regarded in the basketball-stats community that point guard is far and away the hardest position to quantify. You can throw out 4-for-11 shooting stats all day long, and that isn't going to convince me that the guy wasn't doing a whole hell of a lot to help the team win--which, of course, they were doing a whole hell of a lot of.

You say he "was not great here," in bold and all. I say you are horribly mistaken. Horribly. He was, as some high-placed scouts put it, the straw that stirs the drink, the topping on the enchilada. He was the engine that drove those (very good) Mavs teams. He was the reason we were a serious threat, because--among other things--he was the guy who could get Dirk Nowitzki off. Now, then, Dirk is getting off by himself...in the regular season, anyway. You saw what I saw last postseason, which was Dirk being more or less emasculated in the postseason.

You like to point to Nash's postseasons struggles against Mike Bibby and/or Tony Parker, but you don't seem to want to include in your analysis Dirk's struggles against Tracy McGrady and/or Shawn Marion.

Point is, I will always believe that the Mavs needed to keep that two-headed monster together. If they can get there without Nash, it will be a huge testament to Dirk. But I'm not holding my breath just yet. I think the Mavs have a great chance to get through the playoffs this year, or in the next few. But I also know that they might not. And if they don't, I surely won't make such a fool of myself as to blame Dirk for all that.

dude1394
03-28-2006, 09:52 PM
I think I'm done talking about nash...Edit...I'm taking all of the "imo"s out, it's all my opinion.

Cubes took a huge gamble letting nash go. It is yet to be seen if it was a good one or not. There are too many other changes that went with it. I didn't like it and still don't like it. The only positive is that it might have pushed nellie out and it was time for him to go.

We still have point guard issues on this team. If devin comes on great, but you could easily say it has been a wasted two years that we could have conceivably won two championships.

We also enabled our competition that had the best record in the league last year. Another stupid move.

So bottom line he conceivably gave up two potential championships as I see it (two years of dirks career) on a very big gamble, a gamble that was wrong so far. His gamble was that steve was breaking down, not so far he hasn't.

orangedays
03-28-2006, 10:03 PM
"They were doing a whole hell of a lot of (winning)."

We were winning in the regular season chum, something you dismiss yourself as not very important in your second paragraph. This is something we can agree on - winning in the regular seasons means, at the end of the day, absolutely nothing.

4-1, 4-1, 4-2, 4-1

In 21 playoff games we won 5. That's a .238 winning-percentage. Decidedly not a whole lot of winning.

"Now, then, Dirk is getting off by himself...in the regular season, anyway."

"You like to point to Nash's postseasons struggles against Mike Bibby and/or Tony Parker, but you don't seem to want to include in your analysis Dirk's struggles against Tracy McGrady and/or Shawn Marion."

You mean to qualify, in part, Nash's legacy by pointing to his past ability to get Dirk looks. Then you dismiss Dirk's present success because it is in the regular season? Are we to forget that Dirk averaged 21 pts and 9 rebs against Tracy McGrady and the Rockets last year? That he averaged 26.5 pts and 11.5 rebs against Shawn Marion and the Suns? Sure, you can say he 'struggled', but that term is used relatively. Dirk still did a damn fine job against those two players. And I guarantee you, he will get off in this year's playoffs too, just you wait.

This is the same argument that alot of people use to dismiss Shawn Marion's present play. "Marion is good because of Nash...", "Before Nash came along, Marion was on the trading block", etc. etc. The argument holds no water in Marion's case, and it holds even less when it is used on Nowitzki.

That's perfectly fine that you continue to believe in the "two-headed monster", I am not trying to discourage your belief in any way. But, sir, you are well over-stepping yourself by suggesting that I made a fool of myself.

This debate started with you misinterpreting what I said. We have now progressed to you accusing me of blaming Nash for our lack of success? The closest thing I said to that was asserting that Nash simply was not good enough to take us to the promised land. I didn't say it was his fault, I just said he couldn't do it - an irrefutable fact seeing as how Dallas has yet to bring home an O'Brien Trophy.

You are being entirely too defensive and bringing topics to the fore that I have not even addressed, simply because you think I'm using this forum to attack Nash - which is certainly not the case. I usually like your posts chum, but you need to check that Nash-love at the door because it is impairing your ability to understand what I am trying to say.

chumdawg
03-28-2006, 10:22 PM
The closest thing I said to that was asserting that Nash simply was not good enough to take us to the promised land. I didn't say it was his fault, I just said he couldn't do it - an irrefutable fact seeing as how Dallas has yet to bring home an O'Brien Trophy. This is certainly, beyond question--to borrow a term you seem to like to use, irrefutably--NOT a fact. Let me repeat. This is NOT a fact. Again for you, I will say it one...more...time: This is NOT a fact.

The Mavs took a twelve- or thirteen-point lead (I cannot remember which) to the fourth quarter in Game Six of the Western Conference Finals in 2003. They would have been decided favorites against New Jersey if they had won the series.

Given those two propositions--well, one is a "fact" and one is a proposition, but a well-founded one--what do you expect the statistical likelihood was of the Mavs winning the series against the Spurs and then going on to win the series against the Nets? I'm certain it was at least 25%, and I'm fairly confident it was closer to one-third, if not greater.

If you want to disparage Steve Nash, please do not do it on the basis that the Mavs did not beat the Spurs in 2003, clearly the year that they were best poised to win the conference and, in turn, the league championship. For all the talk you do about Nash getting his ass whipped by Bibby, the Mavs beat the Kings that year--and might I add that Bibby chipped in there with a well-time airball in the last minute of a close game.

If Dirk struggles "relatively," Nash struggles relatively. It is a well-established fact that individual, and thusly also team, statistics drop off in the postseason as compared to the regular season because the opposition is filtered. This is nothing new. Yet you find a way to champion Dirk while disparaging Nash.

If you want to retract what you said and say that you appreciate Nash's contributions to the team, and that he helped WAY more often than he hurt (if he ever did), you can expect a "fair enough" from me. But if you continue to paint Nash as an ineffective performer, playoffs or otherwise, you will continue to get a counterargument from this end. And if you persist in saying that we are better off without an All-NBA player than with an All-NBA player...well, I will just have to shake my head and question your sanity.

You characterize a one-third chance that didn't get there as "could not." Not in my world, buddy. In my world, a one-third chance "can," and does so, in fact, one time in three.

EricaLubarsky
03-28-2006, 11:51 PM
Suns couldnt defend an ant with 2 legs tonight.

orangedays
03-29-2006, 12:22 AM
This is certainly, beyond question--to borrow a term you seem to like to use, irrefutably--NOT a fact. Let me repeat. This is NOT a fact. Again for you, I will say it one...more...time: This is NOT a fact.

The Mavs took a twelve- or thirteen-point lead (I cannot remember which) to the fourth quarter in Game Six of the Western Conference Finals in 2003. They would have been decided favorites against New Jersey if they had won the series.

Your inability or refusal to understand what I am saying is beginning to puzzle me. It's not a fact that Nash didn't lead us to the promised land? It's not a fact that Nash didn't win us a championship? It's not a fact that Dallas has yet to be graced by the O'Brien Trophy? No chum. It is a fact. An irrefutable one. We can sit by the fire and talk all night about how the Mavs (or any number of Western Conference teams that year for that matter) would have beaten the Nets had they made it past the Spurs but the point is moot. No statistic will change the fact that we did not win the championship. The Mavs did not make it past the Spurs. That is a fact.

You pin your argument to the 2003 victory over Sacramento and you accuse me of selective memory? It took us 7 hard-fought games to get past the Kings. What happened the next year? 4-1. That is significant. And using a single air-ball to characterize the play of Mike Bibby is just a poor effort.

If Dirk struggles "relatively," Nash struggles relatively. It is a well-established fact that individual, and thusly also team, statistics drop off in the postseason as compared to the regular season because the opposition is filtered. This is nothing new. Yet you find a way to champion Dirk while disparaging Nash.

A well-established fact which has no bearing on the premise. With the exception of 2001, Dirk improved upon his numbers from the regular season to the playoffs. With the exception of the 2002 playoffs, Nash's numbers declined in the playoffs. The evidence makes it very easy for me to champion Dirk while (I hate to use this word but you seem to love it) 'disparaging' Nash.

If you want to retract what you said and say that you appreciate Nash's contributions to the team, and that he helped WAY more often than he hurt (if he ever did), you can expect a "fair enough" from me. But if you continue to paint Nash as an ineffective performer, playoffs or otherwise, you will continue to get a counterargument from this end. And if you persist in saying that we are better off without an All-NBA player than with an All-NBA player...well, I will just have to shake my head and question your sanity.

I'm not looking for a "fair enough" from you chum. This entire conversation has been you (1) misconstruing what I said and me pointing that out to you and (2) you throwing out various unfounded assertions and me providing evidence and commentary to the contrary. Whether or not you choose to see that evidence is certainly up to you. Nash was a good player, but Nash was not the piece we needed to move forward. History tells us that. Your argument is based entirely on conjecture - that we would be a better team with Nash. My argument is based on reality - Nash did not lead us to an NBA Championship. Nash led us to a 60-win season. And...that is a pace we are set to break this year. So...until the playoffs begin and we do indeed go deeper than Nash ever took us, I will simply point to our regular season record and say that we are a better team without Nash than we ever were with him. Question my sanity all you want, you will find that those who choose to stay in the dark are rarely able to see the world around them.

You characterize a one-third chance that didn't get there as "could not." Not in my world, buddy. In my world, a one-third chance "can," and does so, in fact, one time in three.

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. This is the most fallacious statement you have made thus far. In statistics, yes, if you flip a coin you have a 50-50 chance of getting heads of tails. In basketball, having a one-third chance to win means absolutely nothing. If the Mavs had a one-third chance of winning the Championship in the 4 years that Nash were here, then we would have won at least one. Right? A probability of one in three with a sample of four? Your world is skewed because it refuses to recognize the difference between the court and the spreadsheet. Statistics are a tool chum, they are not the final word.

chumdawg
03-29-2006, 12:46 AM
I know you are a smart guy, OD, but you are either being rather obtuse here or you aren't near as smart as I thought you were.

To wit: if you believe that whoever wins the NBA championship each year is far and away the greatest team that season and that no other team was even close, I pity you. I flat pity you, because you will live the rest of your life with a dire misunderstanding of how things work in the real world.

An exercise for you:

On a sliding 100-point scale, something like 75/25, how do you rate:

The Spurs against the Pistons last year?
The Lakers against Portland in 2000?
The Lakers against the Kings in 2002?
The Spurs against Dallas in 2003?

You come across as though those were absolute certainties--else why would you trumpet that Nash was holding the Mavs back all these years?--but the truth is that if the Blazers don't break down at the foul line in the fourth quarter, not to mention fall prey to some very susceptible calls, they beat the Lakers in 2000. The truth is that if a ball doesn't miraculously bounce to Robert Horry the Lakers face a huge uphill battle against the Kings in 2002 and probably do not win the series, and then the championship. The truth is that the Spurs were at best--AT BEST--70% favorites to win the game against Detroit last year. Just as they were to win it all in 2003. If you don't think a 30% or more chance represents something more than terribly overmatched, the kind of overmatched where you blow up your team, then I just don't know how we are ever going to see eye to eye here. Would you also recommend that Chauncey Billups, or Rip Hamilton, or Ben Wallace, or Rasheed Wallace, or Tayshaun Prince demonstrably needs to go because the Pistons clearly could not beat the Pistons with that player on the roster? News for you, OD: the Mavs were as close, for all intents, as the Pistons were last year. The Pistons didn't blow it up, and look where they are this year.

You said that with the exception of 2001 Dirk's numbers improved in the playoffs. (Not sure why you would except one of the years, but that's neither here nor there.) Well, last year and without Nash, his numbers declined dramatically, didn't they? In fact, I remember reading a study that had Dirk near the bottom of the bunch in terms of players whose stats declined in the regular season as compared to the regular season. What say you? I mean, this is when he is supposed to be getting better, right? This is when Nash is finding an entirely new level. For Dirk to tank while Nash excels is rather embarrassing for the Mavs, and rather damaging to your argument.

And finally, if you think a 33% chance means you should definitely win once in four tries, then you show absolutely no understanding of statistics--despite your otherwise more than competent intelligence, I will grant you that--and you should go ahead and back out of this debate now. We are operating on entirely different planes, and you have some work to do.

orangedays
03-29-2006, 12:48 AM
Your pity is lost on me because you are pitying me for something I've never said. More to come as I read your reply.

orangedays
03-29-2006, 12:56 AM
You said that with the exception of 2001 Dirk's numbers improved in the playoffs. (Not sure why you would except one of the years, but that's neither here nor there.) Well, last year and without Nash, his numbers declined dramatically, didn't they? In fact, I remember reading a study that had Dirk near the bottom of the bunch in terms of players whose stats declined in the regular season as compared to the regular season. What say you? I mean, this is when he is supposed to be getting better, right? This is when Nash is finding an entirely new level. For Dirk to tank while Nash excels is rather embarrassing for the Mavs, and rather damaging to your argument.

You don't understand why I would except years? I recall you saying something about outliers in the past? I assumed that you would look up Dirk's numbers in 2001 and realize that the reason I "excepted" it is because his points total in the playoffs were identical to the ones he had during the regular season. I guess I gave you too much credit.

Dirk had a phenomenal year last year (coincidentally, the year Nash left, guess Dirk didn't need Nash to set him up afterall, gee whiz) - 26.3 ppg, 9.7 rpg. His numbers in the playoffs? 23.7 ppg, 10.1 rpg. Are you serious? What kind of superstar players do we have in the NBA where a decrease of 2.6 pts and an increase of 0.4 rbs rests at the bottom of the bunch?

chumdawg
03-29-2006, 01:01 AM
You don't understand why I would except years? I recall you saying something about outliers in the past? I assumed that you would look up Dirk's numbers in 2001 and realize that the reason I "excepted" it is because his points total in the playoffs were identical to the ones he had during the regular season. I guess I gave you too much credit. Crap, you excepted GAMES! I really don't care if you except 2001, for Dirk OR Nash, because neither was ready to compete at a top level until 2003.

Dirk had a phenomenal year last year (coincidentally, the year Nash left, guess Dirk didn't need Nash to set him up afterall, gee whiz) - 26.3 ppg, 9.7 rpg. His numbers in the playoffs? 23.7 ppg, 10.1 rpg. Are you serious? What kind of superstar players do we have in the NBA where a decrease of 2.6 pts and an increase of 0.4 rbs rests at the bottom of the bunch?Do you really wanna know?

orangedays
03-29-2006, 01:04 AM
Haha, okay buddy. Enough is enough. I'm going to go ahead and draw the line with you saying that we operate on different planes.

Do you really want to compare brain pans with me? The smart answer is no, but through our conversation you have persuaded me that you will not pick that answer.

This was never a personal issue for me, but through the increasingly deprecatory nature of your posts you appear intent on making it one - so let's.

How would you like to quantify it? SAT scores? GMAT? LSAT? IQs? GPAs? Pick your poison. We can do this through PM should you so desire.

chumdawg
03-29-2006, 01:12 AM
1580 SAT, when I was young and foolish. 1600 GRE, when I was more seasoned. 4.0 GPA, of course. Never took the GMAT or LSAT. Don't know what IQ test I could ever trust.

What you got?

orangedays
03-29-2006, 01:23 AM
Scored 179 on the Stanford-Binet at age 10.
Scored 1540 on the SATs at age 14.
Scored 1600 on the SATs at age 17.
Scored 780 on the GMAT at age 20.
Scored 177 on the LSAT at age 20.
Scored 172 on the Stanford-Binet at age 21.

You've got me beat on GPA, I've only got a 3.82. Then again W&M (U.S. News ranked #31) is considered an 'academic bootcamp' by the nation's top law schools which typically award an extra +0.3 to GPA to level the scale during the admissions process.

chumdawg
03-29-2006, 01:35 AM
You've got me beat! Though surely you will share my pessimism that the SAT is a reasonably accurate filter of those with higher intelligence. It's just too easy.

Though, I took it in a different time (1990, I think it was.) I understand it's quite a bit easier now, and also incorporates a third portion, a writing portion, which is graded subjectively. I believe I have also heard there is a subject-specific element to it, which there didn't used to be.

Actually, I say you beat me...but I took the SAT at age 16. Depending on the timing, my feat may have been more impressive. I never took the LSAT or the Stanford-Binet, but I'm certain that my scores would have rivaled yours, if this thread is any indicator.

Edit: Check that. I think I was 17 when I took the SAT, now that I reconstruct it. But I do remember reading something about how they made it easier when they revised it. Something like there were 200 people nationwide who aced it back then, compared to 2,000 now. I may be wrong, though. Regardless, it's not important. You are obviously quite smart, even if they made the test easier. Still prone to errors, but smart indeed.

orangedays
03-29-2006, 01:54 AM
I took the SAT quite a while before they added the subjective writing portion. The score for the new test is 2400. The SAT was easy when I was 14 and it's easy now, I only included it since most Americans have taken it (and not many people have been party to the other tests I have taken over the course of the past decade). It was either the SAT or nothing so I chose the lesser of the two evils.

But to your point, no, this thread is not an indicator. And in the interests of, well...my desire to go to sleep, I will not go into the deficiencies in your argument(s) again since I feel we have already debated the issue to death and you remain well-entrenched in your position and I in mine. Neither of us are budging, so what's the point.

Finally, and I'll keep this short in the interest of brevity, I can say with absolute certainty that no...your scores would not have rivaled mine. My current IQ (though disappointingly lower than it was when I was younger and brighter) puts me in the unique position where I can tell you that I am, in fact, certainly smarter than you. As a matter-of-fact, I can tell you that I am, statistically-speaking, probably smarter than anyone you know (or anyone you have ever met). If you so desire, you can learn more about the Stanford-Binet test here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford-Binet).

chumdawg
03-29-2006, 01:56 AM
Once again, OD! Once again, you show an unfortunate misunderstanding of statistics! It's how this debate got started in the first place...

orangedays
03-29-2006, 01:57 AM
I've been unable to find an accurate scale I can link to on the internet. I have a pamphlet at home in Shanghai that covers pretty much what scores correlate to what level of intelligence and also gives a general idea of how many people correlate to which scores. I've come across some sites such as this one (http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/IQtable.html), but its accuracy is questionable.

Anyways, my sleepiness overwhelms my ...anger? It wasn't really anger, my disappointment I guess that you would resort to a personal attack. This forum is about the Mavericks. Let's keep it that way in the future.

Thespiralgoeson
03-29-2006, 01:59 AM
Chum, Dirk didn't struggle by any stretch of the imagination against Marion last year in the second round. He struggled in the first round, yes, but I honestly think that can be chucked up to a case of bronchitis, a rookie coach, and a team full of players that had never been to the playoffs.

Dude, you're right in that Cuban's gamble was that Nash would break down. And yes, he to date he hasn't done that. But truly, did ANYONE think he was going to break down last year? Or this year for that matter? I think the gamble was that Nash might break down when he's 34 or 35.

I also think it's a little sad that every Mav-fan that champions the Nash-era Mavs points to Dirk's injury in the WCF but makes absolutely no mention whatsoever of Chris Webber's virtually career-ending injury.

Let me put this very plainly. 2003 Kings > 2003 Mavs.

Is that a fact? Of course not, it's my opinion, which I know many will dispute. But my side of the debate is most certainly not without merit. The Kings were deeper, better defensively, had something that sort of resembled an inside presense, and were every bit as explosive offensively. Not to mention that the Nash-era Mavs were thoroughly, completely, totally, and undeniably owned by Lakers for several years. The Kings, as you already pointed out, gave the Lakers all they could handle. The Spurs? Well they beat the Lakers. I'm almost certain that if the Mavs ever met the Lakers in the playoffs, it would've been another 4-1 exit for the Mavs.

orangedays
03-29-2006, 02:03 AM
Once again, OD! Once again, you show an unfortunate misunderstanding of statistics! It's how this debate got started in the first place...

According to the site that I cited in my earlier post, an IQ of 172 correlates to a hit-rate of 1:1,759,737.

In the literature that I received with my test, I remember the number being slightly lower - more along the lines of 1:950,000. Assuming my memory serves me correctly, that would make me one of the 6,315 smartest people in the world. I welcome you to take the test and see whether you are one of those people.

chumdawg
03-29-2006, 02:20 AM
There are several problems with your claim, OD, that not only are you "smarter" than me, but that you are also "smarter" than anyone I know. The first problem is that anyone who is at all versed in intelligence tests realizes what manifest limitations they have. The fact that you subscribe to the results blindly paints you as something of an intellectual masturbater, if you will allow me that liberty with words.

But the most damning thing is your unequivocal claim that no one else you might meet on d-m.com, or someone that person knows, would match your intellectual prowess. You made a bold claim that this certainly could not be the case. If you were quite as smart as you would like to be, you would know that you could never make such a bold claim, as little information as you have to go on.

That's why your post is masturbatory (again, with the perhaps made-up word) and why you are spry but have a lot to learn.

For what it's worth, I'm positive I would match you on the Stanford-Binet, and if not I'm certain I know one or two people who could. Be careful how strong the limb is you step out on.

Thespiralgoeson
03-29-2006, 02:23 AM
Good god, this thread has really gone down the shitter. Can we try to stick to basketball, please?

orangedays
03-29-2006, 02:27 AM
Strong enough to welcome you to attempt the test. Otherwise your claims have no basis. None.

Please read up on the Stanford-Binet before you criticize it with cute but puerile words that reveal more about you than you realize.

I am glad that you are positive. Again, I welcome you to take the test. And ask your bright friends (perhaps they've taken it already).

Until then, you can argue against the statistics (arguing against them now? such irony), but (unlike me), you have no limb to stand on.

orangedays
03-29-2006, 02:28 AM
Good god, this thread has really gone down the shitter. Can we try to stick to basketball, please?

I'm finished with this thread.

chumdawg
03-29-2006, 02:33 AM
Strong enough to welcome you to attempt the test. Otherwise your claims have no basis. None.

Please read up on the Stanford-Binet before you criticize it with cute but puerile words that reveal more about you than you realize.

I am glad that you are positive. Again, I welcome you to take the test. And ask your bright friends (perhaps they've taken it already).

Until then, you can argue against the statistics (arguing against them now? such irony), but (unlike me), you have no limb to stand on.Okay, genius. If there are 6,000 people alive who are as smart as you are, what are the odds that a person you ran into on a message board is either as smart as you are or knows someone who is? You said they were zero, so not only would I be interested in your answer to the question (I'm assuming you can derive it, but I'm growing increasingly skeptical), but I'm also interested in your explanation why it doesn't equal zero.

I will leave you with that, grasshopper.

Tokey41
03-30-2006, 03:34 PM
I'm not sure why some people feel the need to brag about their intelligence, especially on a board in which it has no relevance. SAT scores and such are a great way to measure some aspects of your intelligence but they do not measure all of them so lets not get into why using every single way of measuring your intelligence is flawed. You guys want to argue about intelligence, go ahead, but as I recall this is a basketball thread, a basketball forum, and now this is a basketball post. So if you would be kind enough, can we please just talk about how terrible Phoenix has been lately?

SO with that said... we won't see Jersey in the playoffs, no way! And if the Kings get into the 7th seed we won't see the Suns either... hehe. But I think i'd rather have the Kings play the Spurs while we handle the Grizz (yeah im thinking thats who it will be, scary though). We'd still probably see the Spurs but I think SAC would take them to maybe 6 games whereas LAL... well.. I dunno... 4? I guess we'll see how accruate that is when SA and LAL play tonight, I know Kobe stole one from them a while ago but in a playoff atmosphere I don't think even he can do it.

orangedays
03-31-2006, 11:27 AM
I'm not sure why some people feel the need to brag about their intelligence, especially on a board in which it has no relevance. SAT scores and such are a great way to measure some aspects of your intelligence but they do not measure all of them so lets not get into why using every single way of measuring your intelligence is flawed. You guys want to argue about intelligence, go ahead, but as I recall this is a basketball thread, a basketball forum, and now this is a basketball post. So if you would be kind enough, can we please just talk about how terrible Phoenix has been lately?

SO with that said... we won't see Jersey in the playoffs, no way! And if the Kings get into the 7th seed we won't see the Suns either... hehe. But I think i'd rather have the Kings play the Spurs while we handle the Grizz (yeah im thinking thats who it will be, scary though). We'd still probably see the Spurs but I think SAC would take them to maybe 6 games whereas LAL... well.. I dunno... 4? I guess we'll see how accruate that is when SA and LAL play tonight, I know Kobe stole one from them a while ago but in a playoff atmosphere I don't think even he can do it.

Thread was dead for over two days before you dug it up. Try and stay in context.

u2sarajevo
03-31-2006, 11:39 AM
^^^^^^We just heard from a brilliant human being. I mean, obviously. ;) :p

orangedays
03-31-2006, 11:57 AM
^^^^^^We just heard from a brilliant human being. I mean, obviously. ;) :p

Haha...aw man, even U2 got a shot in. Everyone's giving me a hard time these days :D.

bernardos70
03-31-2006, 01:14 PM
This thread sucks :)

Tokey41
03-31-2006, 08:59 PM
If you call dead 5 threads down from the top SURE why not...

edit: but fine, let it die then

Evilmav2
03-31-2006, 10:21 PM
Hahaha... I haven't really been keeping up with the board much over the last couple of weeks, but I still can't believe I missed a standardized-testing bruhaha like this one. In my day, I've posted some pretty good test scores myself, but that doesn't always buy you the new Cadillac...

chumdawg
03-31-2006, 10:39 PM
Hell, post 'em up, Evil. It might bolster my claim to OD that when he visits dallas-effin'-mavs.com, he isn't necessarily mingling in the general population...

Evilmav2
03-31-2006, 10:48 PM
Hell, post 'em up, Evil. It might bolster my claim to OD that when he visits dallas-effin'-mavs.com, he isn't necessarily mingling in the general population...

Well, from what I've seen, nobody on this thread (or anywhere else) can beat my English PSAT or SAT score (the early 90's more difficult version), nobody's beaten me in LSAT (although I'm sure folks like KG and Dooby might have), and nobody can beat my currently non-posting, younger brother Mavinator in his Math SAT score (contemporaneous with OD).

My old friend, the Ape, is no slouch when it comes to standardized testing either, but I'll refrain from trying to remember and post any of his scores here...

Edit- Just for the hell of it, I'll also say that my two sisters scored nearly perfect scores on their SAT's (like me, the oldest, and like my brother, the youngest), and graduated from high school as valedictorian and salutatorian, respectively- unlike their drinking, lazy older and younger brothers), and the elder of my younger sisters has spent much of the last decade studying musicology at first Wellesley College and then Harvard University (after being a runner up for the Rhodes scholarship), and who is now about to begin teaching as a professor at Wellesley. My youngest sister spent her undergrad at Pomona, and last year, attended Kings College in London earning her masters in art history, and now has to choose between the art history programs of the five grad schools that accepted her this Spring, and she is also probably fated to become a professor at a good school...

chumdawg
03-31-2006, 11:20 PM
That's balls-on.

I took those same tests you did in the early 1990's. I hear they made them a little easier, but I can't attest to that since I have not seen the current versions. For that matter, I'm not sure I could attest anyway, as the older versions were quite beatable in their own right.

I'm quite certain that the likes of KG and Dooby scored about as high as you can score on the LSAT, and of course I already knew that the likes of you and the Mad Ape doubtless scored the maximum or very near on any and all standardized tests thrown your way.

It's an intelligent community, the d-m.com. Even the non-posters have aced the standardized tests!

orangedays
03-31-2006, 11:29 PM
I must say, I am very proud to be a member of the smartest board on the internet :D

Evilmav2
03-31-2006, 11:30 PM
It's an intelligent community, the d-m.com. Even the non-posters have aced the standardized tests!

Sadly, my younger brother, 'the Mavinator', was once a much more dedicated poster than myself (That non-posting punk posted to the tune of 1200+ posts in the first year of this site's existence), but he has since strayed from the flock...

He did score a perfect on his math SAT though :D ...

chumdawg
03-31-2006, 11:32 PM
Sadly, my younger brother, 'the Mavinator', was once a much more dedicated poster than myself (to the tune of 1200+ posts in the first year of this site's existence), but he has since strayed from the flock...

He did score a perfect on his math SAT though :D ...Yeah, but who didn't? ;)

Tell that boy to come back!

Evilmav2
03-31-2006, 11:37 PM
Yeah, but who didn't? ;)

No math perfect for me, CD. I really, really hate math :D ...

chumdawg
03-31-2006, 11:48 PM
And no Verbal perfect for me, brutha. At the time I despised the Verbal. But now, then, I know what all that Math is worth--if you know what I mean.

bernardos70
04-01-2006, 01:01 AM
Ass kickings turned into a kick ass win for the Suns tonite.

Although it must not be forgotten that Nash can still suck it.