Jason Terry is a fraud - Page 2 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

LonghornDub · 03-13-2011, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Male29Dan

I am not going to get into a pissing match with you bro - I'm just not. But to say that when all the shit is on the line (small sample size or not - that's all we have to look at) player A WAY more often than not sucks vs shines ultimately means jack solely because it isn't 120 games, yup - agree to disagree. Compelling as it is to agree with you, I disagree.

Well, no, that's not all we have to look at. That's all you're choosing to look at, which is your call, but there's certainly a wealth of objective data you're disregarding.

But yeah, if there's one thing we know in sports, it's that the "playoff choker" moniker is always fairly earned and never comes crashing down quicker than you can blink.

And I'm sorry you think it's a "pissing match" when someone refuses to bite on your mischaracterizations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Male29Dan

...and just one more thing. I am not on here saying that trend means EVERYTHING, but you are on here saying it means NOTHING.

Which stance is more flawed?

My previous remark was poorly phrased/not properly qualified. I don't think it means "nothing" in the absolute sense. It's a data point, one fairly referenced. But it means nothing in the context of this conclusive assertion that the guy is a "fraud," or forever doomed to fail in all future playoffs.

Male30Dan · 03-13-2011, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

Usually Lurkin · 03-13-2011, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Just to be clear also, nowhereman, I'm not booking that Terry is going to own the playoffs this year. I'm just as concerned as anyone. More than anything, I'm concerned that he's asked to do more than he should be, because he's a legitimate #3 scorer, but not really a #2.

The difference between me and some of the others around here (including you, I guess) is I haven't convinced myself that he's done forever just because he's had a bad stretch in 20 recent playoff games. It's a poor conclusion to draw.

uh, a bad stretch of 20 out of 25 games is something you should take not of. If your coin comes up tails 20 out of 25 times, you should notice, and you should probably worry if you need it to come up heads 15 out of the next 20 times to make it to a championship.

chumdawg · 03-13-2011, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Twenty-five games is a small sample size, dude.

I think twenty-five games is actually an extraordinarily *large* sample size for playoff stats. What size would you think is reasonable?

Male30Dan · 03-13-2011, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Well, no, that's not all we have to look at. That's all you're choosing to look at, which is your call, but there's certainly a wealth of objective data you're disregarding.

But yeah, if there's one thing we know in sports, it's that the "playoff choker" moniker is always fairly earned and never comes crashing down quicker than you can blink.

And I'm sorry you think it's a "pissing match" when someone refuses to bite on your mischaracterizations.

My previous remark was poorly phrased/not properly qualified. I don't think it means "nothing" in the absolute sense. It's a data point, one fairly referenced. But it means nothing in the context of this conclusive assertion that the guy is a "fraud," or forever doomed to fail in all future playoffs.

I'm done here... If my last post goes over your head what more is there to say. Night night LHD.

Male30Dan · 03-13-2011, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I think twenty-five games is actually an extraordinarily *large* sample size for playoff stats. What size would you think is reasonable?

A fing Men.

Usually Lurkin · 03-13-2011, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I think twenty-five games is actually an extraordinarily *large* sample size for playoff stats. What size would you think is reasonable?

25 games over 4 years, though, is a sad, sad, very sad sample size.

And it is what it is because we keep relying on Terry so much.

chumdawg · 03-13-2011, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

We can start listing all the players in all sports who were dubbed "playoff chokers" their entire careers until all of the sudden they won a championship, if you like.

Do it. I wanna see it. The only example that comes immediately to mind is Eli Manning. But I'm one who thinks "small sample size" definitely comes into play here, the other way round.

Male30Dan · 03-13-2011, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

25 games over 4 years, though, is a sad, sad, very sad sample size.

And it is what it is because we keep relying on Terry so much.

Must spread rep...

LonghornDub · 03-13-2011, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Male29Dan

I'm done here... If my last post goes over your head what more is there to say. Night night LHD.

Please. "Pissing match," "over your head." Whatever, man. You wanna discuss points, let's discuss points. But stop taking everything so damn personally. I'm not out to get you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I think twenty-five games is actually an extraordinarily *large* sample size for playoff stats. What size would you think is reasonable?

I won't think any sample size of playoff games is reasonable for determinative predictions of future performance, as long as the overall number of games played is many, many times higher and reflects a much different level of performance.

Like we've talked about, I don't buy the premise that the playoffs are so fundamentally different that (for example, in Terry's case) a 25-game sample size is a better predictor of the future than a 400+ game sample-size including all games.

I'll take the 400+ games. And I'm also very comfortable being wrong if he folds up tent a few more times in the postseason. Like I said, I'm as concerned about it as anyone.

chumdawg · 03-13-2011, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

25 games over 4 years, though, is a sad, sad, very sad sample size.

And it is what it is because we keep relying on Terry so much.

Mistaken.

Male30Dan · 03-13-2011, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Please. "Pissing match," "over your head." Whatever, man. You wanna discuss points, let's discuss points. But stop taking everything so damn personally. I'm not out to get you.

I won't think any sample size of playoff games is reasonable for determinative predictions of future performance, as long as the overall number of games played is many, many times higher and reflects a much different level of performance.

Like we've talked about, I don't buy the premise that the playoffs are so fundamentally different that (for example, in Terry's case) a 25-game sample size is a better predictor of the future than a 400+ game sample-size including all games.

I'll take the 400+ games. And I'm also very comfortable being wrong if he folds up tent a few more times in the postseason. Like I said, I'm as concerned about it as anyone.

You still didn't acknowledge my question. Which is more flawed? Thinking there is SOMETHING to the trend, or thinking it doesn't mean jack?

Put me in the camp that thinks there absolutely IS something fundamentally different from the 400 games you say he played in which roughly half were against sub-par teams. The 20+ games he sucked in were against much better teams. THAT is a fundamental difference. The teams are better - much better in many cases. The intensity should be obviously noted. It is different. It is.

Usually Lurkin · 03-13-2011, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Mistaken.

uh, 25 games over 4 years is about 1 playoff series per year. That's sad. Relying on Terry as our 2nd scorer is a big part of it.

chumdawg · 03-13-2011, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

I won't think any sample size of playoff games is reasonable for determinative predictions of future performance, as long as the overall number of games played is many, many times higher and reflects a much different level of performance.

Like we've talked about, I don't buy the premise that the playoffs are so fundamentally different that (for example, in Terry's case) a 25-game sample size is a better predictor of the future than a 400+ game sample-size including all games.

I'll take the 400+ games. And I'm also very comfortable being wrong if he folds up tent a few more times in the postseason. Like I said, I'm as concerned about it as anyone.

I feel what you are saying about playoffs not being that different than, say, a game like tonight. But I may be wrong on that, and even if not, let's set it aside for the moment.

I'm not sure how we arrived at the 25/400 numbers for playoffs/reg.season for Terry in the recent discussion. I just checked him on basketball-reference.com, and he has 62 playoff games and 942 reg. season games. His WS/48 (the metric they use) is .128 in reg-season games and .088 in playoff games. I don't know much about that metric, but it looks to me like a huge difference.

Where did we get to 25 games? The most recent 25? Huge sample. Huge.

LonghornDub · 03-13-2011, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Male29Dan

You still didn't acknowledge my question. Which is more flawed? Thinking there is SOMETHING to the trend, or thinking it doesn't mean jack?

I clarified my poor choice of words before. I didn't mean to say the trend "doesn't mean jack" in that nobody should reference it as a data point. Like I said, I should have qualified that and I didn't. I should have said, "It doesn't mean jack as far as conclusively stating that the guy is a 'fraud' or will never play well in the playoffs again."

The thing you don't seem to be recognizing is that you came in here advancing a different viewpoint than the one I was originally questioning. There's you, who says, "I don't know for sure what'll happen, but there's a trend we need to recognize." Fine. I agree completely. You and I give different weight the trend, but of course you're justified in referencing it as a data point. I think it's fairly worthless because "playoff choker" trends get knocked on their head all the time, but that's just my opinion. It's not gospel.

But then there's, "Jason Terry is a fraud," "Terry will do nothing in the playoffs," "This trend tells us that he's done forever." Wrong. That is the logically flawed conclusion I referenced before you came in.

chumdawg · 03-13-2011, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

uh, 25 games over 4 years is about 1 playoff series per year. That's sad. Relying on Terry as our 2nd scorer is a big part of it.

Tell me how you mean "sad?" I'm not sure I understand you.

Male30Dan · 03-13-2011, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

I clarified my poor choice of words before. I didn't mean to say the trend "doesn't mean jack" in that nobody should reference it as a data point. Like I said, I should have qualified that and I didn't. I should have said, "It doesn't mean jack as far as conclusively stating that the guy is a 'fraud' or will never play well in the playoffs again."

The thing you don't seem to be recognizing is that you came in here advancing a different viewpoint than the one I was originally questioning. There's you, who says, "I don't know for sure what'll happen, but there's a trend we need to recognize." Fine. I agree completely. You and I give different weight the trend, but of course you're justified in referencing it as a data point. I think it's fairly worthless because "playoff choker" trends get knocked on their head all the time, but that's just my opinion. It's not gospel.

But then there's, "Jason Terry is a fraud," "Terry will do nothing in the playoffs," "This trend tells us that he's done forever." Wrong. That is the logically flawed conclusion I referenced before you came in.

Considering the first paragraph, I can agree with this entire post. Nuff said.

Male30Dan · 03-13-2011, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Tell me how you mean "sad?" I'm not sure I understand you.

You two are on the same page. Chum, his point is that it is sad we have only been averaging roughly one playoff series per year over the past 4 (using 25 games / 4 years). He is stating that Terry as our 2nd option is the primary reason for this.

LonghornDub · 03-13-2011, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I feel what you are saying about playoffs not being that different than, say, a game like tonight. But I may be wrong on that, and even if not, let's set it aside for the moment.

I'm not sure how we arrived at the 25/400 numbers for playoffs/reg.season for Terry in the recent discussion. I just checked him on basketball-reference.com, and he has 62 playoff games and 942 reg. season games. His WS/48 (the metric they use) is .128 in reg-season games and .088 in playoff games. I don't know much about that metric, but it looks to me like a huge difference.

Where did we get to 25 games? The most recent 25? Huge sample. Huge.

Well I was obviously just estimating the numbers, but I was including Mavs Terry only. But now that you mention it, 400 is low even for that.

And yes, 25 is the most recent 25 (although that's also an estimate and I think someone said it's actually 27). Or more specifically, it's the 25 (27?) since 2006-2007.

I have no doubt there are things about the playoffs that make them more difficult for a guy like Terry. Better teams, better gameplanning for each specific opponent, better intensity, better crowds, etc. My contention is, those things don't outweigh the radically higher sample size you get from looking at all games.

We could even remove every regular season game against a sub .500 team, and we're probably still talking, what, 225+ games? And then the argument for "the playoffs are different" would be even less compelling.

Like I said, though, this is just an opinion of mine. I have always been very skeptical of guys being given playoffs reputations that are radically different than their regular-season reputations.

chumdawg · 03-13-2011, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Male29Dan

You two are on the same page. Chum, his point is that it is sad we have only been averaging roughly one playoff series per year over the past 4 (using 25 games / 4 years). He is stating that Terry as our 2nd option is the primary reason for this.

Gotcha. Makes sense now.

Usually Lurkin · 03-13-2011, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Tell me how you mean "sad?" I'm not sure I understand you.

as in: The mavs are my favorite team and I really want them to play more than 6 playoff games in a year. 1st round exits for the Mavs make me sad.

mavsfan1000 · 03-13-2011, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

If jet is a fraud...then what is roddy?

Why do you keep mentioning Roddy? Last big playoff moment I remember is Roddy almost making an incredible comeback for us against the Spurs while Terry and Barea were awful.

chumdawg · 03-13-2011, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

There's you, who says, "I don't know for sure what'll happen, but there's a trend we need to recognize." Fine. I agree completely. You and I give different weight the trend, but of course you're justified in referencing it as a data point. I think it's fairly worthless because "playoff choker" trends get knocked on their head all the time, but that's just my opinion. It's not gospel.

This interchange reminds me of the old Bertrand Russell logic play. The farmer's chicken, if you would ask him, believes that the sun rises every day. But then one day, the farmer cuts the chicken's head off.

Of course it's possible that the sun won't rise (for the chicken), just like it's possible that Terry--or anyone else--might get off in a playoff series. But usually...usually the sun rises and Terry doesn't get off.

Arguing the possible is pretty much worthless, given the vagaries of when the farmer might or might not break the neck. Arguing the probable is where the more meaningful deductions can be taken. Otherwise we are all hanging our hats on Corey Brewer taking down an opponent singlehandedly...because, after all, that is possible, isn't it?

dude1394 · 03-13-2011, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mavsfan1000

Why do you keep mentioning Roddy? Last big playoff moment I remember is Roddy almost making an incredible comeback for us against the Spurs while Terry and Barea were awful.

Because this message board goes so ballistic after a loss that it only makes sense to mock it.

LonghornDub · 03-13-2011, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

But usually...usually the sun rises and Terry doesn't get off.

But there's the underlying premise that I don't agree with. "Usually" he doesn't get off....if you only look at playoffs. I believe looking at all games is more useful and more illuminative. Once you add in all those games, it's no longer "usually" Terry doesn't get off.

In other words, I don't agree that we're suddenly looking at mere "possibilities," rather than "probabilities," because I believe the probabilities are established by Terry's entire Mavs career, not just his last 25 playoff games.

dude1394 · 03-13-2011, 02:12 AM

The whole Jet is a fraud because he hasn't been able to overcome the mavs inherent problems doesn't compute to me.

If folks are saying that jet cannot overcome teams game-planning to shut him down...well duh. He's not going to be able to do it, never will. However this team has to be able to have another threat. One of the worst things about tonight was the inability of tyson to make much of an offensive difference.

Marion did...jet didn't...jkiddo really didn't...ty didn't....roddy REALLY didn't. The rest of the team has to step up for this mavs team to win. If they don't, we won't. If they do then jet will get plenty of open looks and he'll make many of them...imo...

Tyson is the difference maker here, he needs to make a difference.

nowhereman · 03-13-2011, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

The thing you don't seem to be recognizing is that you came in here advancing a different viewpoint than the one I was originally questioning. There's you, who says, "I don't know for sure what'll happen, but there's a trend we need to recognize." Fine. I agree completely. You and I give different weight the trend, but of course you're justified in referencing it as a data point. I think it's fairly worthless because "playoff choker" trends get knocked on their head all the time, but that's just my opinion. It's not gospel.

But then there's, "Jason Terry is a fraud," "Terry will do nothing in the playoffs," "This trend tells us that he's done forever." Wrong. That is the logically flawed conclusion I referenced before you came in.

Fine - no one can use trends or stats to conclusively prove what will happen the next time out. Chum touched on this above. Reductio ad absurdum, lets eliminate all statistics entirely because you can never deductively prove anything from them. But I'm sure as hell convinced that relying on Jason Terry in clutch situations in the playoffs is a terrible idea, despite how big he is in regular season games. Playoff games matter more than regular season ones. The fluke here isn't his dip during the playoffs - regardless of sample sizes, measuring the weight and value of certain games played and certain moments, over the last 4 years, the real fluke has been his regular season performances. I could probably find 20 other shooting guards I would trust more than Jason Terry in big playoff minutes, despite his reputation for being a closer and clutch player.

dude1394 · 03-13-2011, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nowhereman

Fine - no one can use trends or stats to conclusively prove what will happen the next time out. Chum touched on this above. I'm sure as hell convinced that relying on Jason Terry in clutch situations in the playoffs is a terrible idea, despite how big he is in regular season games. You could probably find 20 other shooting guards I would trust more than Jason Terry in big playoff minutes, despite his reputation for being a closer and clutch player.

That list I would like to see.

chumdawg · 03-13-2011, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

But there's the underlying premise that I don't agree with. "Usually" he doesn't get off....if you only look at playoffs. I believe looking at all games is more useful and more illuminative. Once you add in all those games, it's no longer "usually" Terry doesn't get off.

In other words, I don't agree that we're suddenly looking at mere "possibilities," rather than "probabilities," because I believe the probabilities are established by Terry's entire Mavs career, not just his last 25 playoff games.

I'm going to agree with dude's post just one below yours. If Terry is off, it's because the team isn't getting him catch-and-shoot opportunities. If I'm not mistaken, that's about the only thing he does well.

There's always a way to shift the premise, if you like, and move around some blame. What we're basically saying here is that Terry is a Kerr or a Jackson from close to ten years ago. That is, of course, extremely valuable in its own right. But it's not the kind of thing that carries a game plan from start to finish.

As for why the Terry of the regular season doesn't translate to the playoffs...I guess it's because easy catch-and-shoot opportunities just aren't that easy.

LonghornDub · 03-13-2011, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nowhereman

The fluke here isn't his dip during the playoffs - regardless of sample sizes, measuring the weight and value of certain games played and certain moments, over the last 4 years, the real fluke has been his regular season performances. I could probably find 20 other shooting guards I would trust more than Jason Terry in big playoff minutes, despite his reputation for being a closer and clutch player.

You can take whichever shooting guards you like, but to say that the overwhelming majority occurrence (Jet plays well in a basketball game) is the "fluke"....that pretty much defies the definition of a fluke. You don't "fluke" into (soon-to-be) two 6th Man awards and several other highly positive seasons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I'm going to agree with dude's post just one below yours. If Terry is off, it's because the team isn't getting him catch-and-shoot opportunities. If I'm not mistaken, that's about the only thing he does well.

There's always a way to shift the premise, if you like, and move around some blame. What we're basically saying here is that Terry is a Kerr or a Jackson from close to ten years ago. That is, of course, extremely valuable in its own right. But it's not the kind of thing that carries a game plan from start to finish.

As for why the Terry of the regular season doesn't translate to the playoffs...I guess it's because easy catch-and-shoot opportunities just aren't that easy.

I think that's an entirely fair assessment. My assessment is different, partially because I think (anecdotally) he had a lot of easy catch and shoot opportunities these past several years, and he just missed a bunch.

nowhereman · 03-13-2011, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

That list I would like to see.

Wade
Kobe
Gordon
Ginobili
Pierce
Johnson
Roy
Ellis
Martin
Iggy
Allen
J-Rich
J.R. Smith
Rip
Harden
Afflalo

Maybe:
Vince
Hinrich
Matthews

but not:
Jackson
crawford
Salmons

CadBane · 03-13-2011, 02:50 AM

Terry should be the 4th option on a Championship team. Problem is, he's been thrust into being the 2nd option on the Mavs every year.

jamyoa · 03-13-2011, 03:03 AM

I said it 3 yr's ago that Jason Terry should have been traded and I got criticized for it. He diss.. in big games and the playoff's and plays no defense. All championship teams have at least a 2nd. superstar except the Mavs! Can u picture Dirk and Chris Paul together, or Dirk and Deron Williams who wants to play 4 Dallas. Biggest mistakes Cuban made was letting go of Nash, trading away Harris for Kidd, and not trading Josh Howard for Pau Gasol when Memphis offered Gasol for Howard. All that is on Cuban...Can u imagine how many rings Dirk would have by now if it weren't 4 Cuban's stupid moves...

Flacolaco · 03-13-2011, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

+1

sefant77 · 03-13-2011, 02:42 PM

Terry against the top 6 teams this season:

5-11 17p 4a 3to
3-15 9p 8a 1to
4-11 10p 4a 1to
5-13 12p 6a 4to
3-12 12p 4a 3to
6-15 19p 2a 1to
3-16 8p 4a 1to
9-16 19p 4a 4to
8-17 16p 9a 2to
3-14 9p 2a 2to
9-15 22p 7a 1to
5-14 12p 4a 1to
7-15 17p 2a 2to
6-16 13p 1a 2to

combined with no defense

But yeah sample size again, huh? But he can make up his poor shooting nights with a late run against Clippers, Kings, Wolves, wow awesome.

dude1394 · 03-13-2011, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sefant77

Terry against the top 6 teams this season:

5-11 17p 4a 3to = 10+2 = 12
3-15 9p 8a 1to =
4-11 10p 4a 1to
5-13 12p 6a 4to
3-12 12p 4a 3to
6-15 19p 2a 1to
3-16 8p 4a 1to
9-16 19p 4a 4to
8-17 16p 9a 2to
3-14 9p 2a 2to
9-15 22p 7a 1to
5-14 12p 4a 1to
7-15 17p 2a 2to
6-16 13p 1a 2to

combined with no defense

But yeah sample size again, huh? But he can make up his poor shooting nights with a late run against Clippers, Kings, Wolves, wow awesome.

How many ft's in each game? How many points are an assist worth?

Jerry Stackhouse · 03-13-2011, 03:09 PM

Seems like people feel the roster is poorly constructed and blaming Terry for it. Has he been blocking trades for better 2nd scorers?

dude1394 · 03-13-2011, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nowhereman

Wade
Kobe
Gordon
Ginobili
Pierce
Johnson
Roy
Ellis
Martin
Iggy
Allen
J-Rich
J.R. Smith
Rip
Harden
Afflalo

Maybe:
Vince
Hinrich
Matthews

but not:
Jackson
crawford
Salmons

Hollinger does not agree
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/holli...fposition%3dsg

You are mixing up small forwards there. Might as well include Lebron, Durant also..

it's not 20.

Quote:

RKPLAYERGPMPGTS%AST TO USG ORR DRR REBR PER VA EWA1Dwyane Wade, MIA6237.2.57614.910.929.35.315.010.425.18505.716.9 2Kobe Bryant, LAL6733.8.55115.79.732.63.613.58.723.87452.315.13Kevin Martin, HOU6531.4.60310.59.027.21.310.35.822.15355.011.84Manu Ginobili, SA6630.9.57922.29.925.12.311.57.022.01350.011.75Eric Gordon, LAC4337.2.58416.29.325.92.76.94.820.93248.78.36Monta Ellis, GS6541.0.53617.010.327.01.68.34.918.96336.111.27Andre Iguodala, PHI5437.0.53829.79.218.92.915.69.318.00223.67.58Tony Allen, MEM5918.6.56012.412.418.75.59.57.517.51114.73.89Ray Allen, BOS6336.3.62215.28.218.42.49.36.017.12225.77.510Joe Johnson, ATL5736.2.51519.88.225.03.010.76.916.82195.06.5RKP LAYERGPMPGTS%AST TO USG ORR DRR REBR PER VA EWA11Jason Terry, DAL6631.9.54119.99.323.61.35.43.416.26180.96.0

sefant77 · 03-13-2011, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

How many ft's in each game? How many points are an assist worth?

I dont care. He had more bad than good games and way too many average games for a guy that provides nothing beside scoring. And i saw 13 of these games.

So i really prefer Roddy playing half of the sg minutes for the rest of the year, even if he sucks right now. If we lose, fine. At least we tried something else.

I dont wanna try the 5th year in a row the same shit that didnt work the past 4 fours. And this shit was playoff Jason Terry.

dude1394 · 03-13-2011, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sefant77

I dont care. He had more bad than good games and way too many average games for a guy that provides nothing beside scoring. And i saw 13 of these games.

So i really prefer Roddy playing half of the sg minutes for the rest of the year, even if he sucks right now. If we lose, fine. At least we tried something else.

I dont wanna try the 5th year in a row the same shit that didnt work the past 4 fours. And this shit was playoff Jason Terry.

Next time you post a bunch of random stats that you could have made up, at least give the games so other scenarios can be looked at.

I want dirk traded...look how he did in these games..
4-14
5-11
2-7
4-13
8-21
1-99
5-12
9-23