Dallas-Mavs.com Forums - View Single Post - The Big Lies

chumdawg · 06-16-2005, 02:32 PM

This analysis is overly simplistic, and in some cases flawed. It's an attempt to make the facts fit the argument. Take the Pistons example. Corliss Williamson is a valued big man? Darko Milicic helped them to a title? He didn't even play. In adding Rasheed Wallace they added yet another bruising big man? Um, they added more than that. They added a guy with a deadly turnaround jumper, who also has quite a propensity for shooting threes. Plus, if Rasheed counts as a big man in the sense that Lord seems to suggest, then so does Antoine Walker.

There's simply far more to it than that.

Almost all discussion I read of "what it takes to win titles" suffers markedly from the fallacies of small sample sizes or misplaced causality. The real answers are far more complex than what most media types care to delve into, or are able to.

If not being big enough is the SOLE reason Phoenix lost to San Antonio, then how were they able to get by Dallas?

Other than that, the rest of the article is basically belaboring the obvious. Every team has "a slew of big men," by Lord's definition of same. I've yet to see a roster full of guys 6'7" and below. But the thing is, there is a wide range of quality among those big men. Lord doesn't seem to take that into account.

06-16-2005, 02:32 PM	#10
chumdawg Guru Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Cowboys Country Posts: 23,336	RE: The Big Lies - by David Lord This analysis is overly simplistic, and in some cases flawed. It's an attempt to make the facts fit the argument. Take the Pistons example. Corliss Williamson is a valued big man? Darko Milicic helped them to a title? He didn't even play. In adding Rasheed Wallace they added yet another bruising big man? Um, they added more than that. They added a guy with a deadly turnaround jumper, who also has quite a propensity for shooting threes. Plus, if Rasheed counts as a big man in the sense that Lord seems to suggest, then so does Antoine Walker. There's simply far more to it than that. Almost all discussion I read of "what it takes to win titles" suffers markedly from the fallacies of small sample sizes or misplaced causality. The real answers are far more complex than what most media types care to delve into, or are able to. If not being big enough is the SOLE reason Phoenix lost to San Antonio, then how were they able to get by Dallas? Other than that, the rest of the article is basically belaboring the obvious. Every team has "a slew of big men," by Lord's definition of same. I've yet to see a roster full of guys 6'7" and below. But the thing is, there is a wide range of quality among those big men. Lord doesn't seem to take that into account.