Quote:
|
Originally Posted by endrity
Their target audience is not us, the diehard fans of the Mavs who know every little detail about our team, but all of the followers of the NBA..
|
Hollinger I get, and cut him some slack, and give him some respect, even, for his numerical analysis. He does a great job, and lets us all know what the numbers say. Whether we agree with them or not, and whether the numerical conclusions make any sense or not, now we know what they say, and we can use them like we want. Hollinger's business is to reduce things to a number or two, and he doesn't stray from that.
Simmons, however, takes a more qualitative approach, and says some things here that transcend the ignorance expected from national media coverage. I mean really - because some of the mavs are shooting 47%, a good point guard can't help them get better shots? The superficiality and the incompleteness of that single paragraph of his warrants a kick to the groin for its writer. Then he goes on for several paragraphs about how these mavs can't run. It's not just that he's not watching the games (if he did, he'd know that Dirk's not a slow PF, that Josh can finish a fast break, and that Terry can get to the basket), it's that he doesn't think through his position far enough to reach the obvious possibility that they haven't been running because they've had a bunch of finishers for the fast break, but no leaders for the fast break. Bragging for 2 more paragraphs about how much time he spent pondering the issue only makes him that much more of an idiot.