BuzzerBeater Forums

Sorry dude, I can't be bothered to read that. To long lol.

Yeah, much better to make snap judgments based on a 5 second glance of half a season worth of statistics.

Oh, and this:

I'm pretty unclear on why Banks and Moon were involved in the deal. And why give away Moon when we could've given away the likes of Solomon.

Banks' contract was needed to makes the salaries line up according to the CBA rules, and Banks was the player included because Toronto had to agree to take his contract in particular from Miami in partial exchange for getting the best player.

Moon was not a throw in like Solomon would have been because Miami needed a player to fill minutes at the 3 spot, so they likely insisted, and because there is no room for him on the Toronto roster with Marion around.

Last edited by TigerUnderGlass at 2/16/2009 2:18:53 AM

Maybe so, but it is true. Moon is what you would get if Marion sucked.

First of all how is that a snap judgement based on a 5 second glance. No offense, but I think I know the reasons for my opinions better than you do. These statistics show their current form, it's the best factor we have to determine that.

I didn't know that about Banks, thanks for pointing that out.

Unfortunately. :p

If you have other reasons then give them. A cryptic statement about having your own reasons is not very convincing. "No offense" but if you cannot even state what your reasons are then how good can they be?

Second, it is not the best factor. Stats have to be put into context to make sense. Since you are a fellow Canadian I'll use a hockey example. Vincent Lecavalier and Brad Richards.

Lecavalier has typically scored between 60 and 80 points. Suddenly 2 years ago he put up 108 and last year put up 92, but this year he's back to normal, on pace for about 70-75. Why was he better those 2 years? Did he play better? No.

If you look up shift times and quality of opposition stats you can see that during those 2 years the Brad Richards line was the one put out against the oppositions best players because Richards is more responsible defensively. Since Richards left Lecavalier gets the top opponents again.

Further proof is that the year before that, when Lecavalier's line was still seeing the opponents best players was Richards best scoring year when he put up 91 points. Richards is still seeing the top opposition for Dallas, and playing in a much harder division in a conference where points are harder to come by, thus his scoring is down too. He is also still the same player he was, but is scoring less regardless.

In other words, basic stats do not give an accurate picture without context, no matter how much you think they show "current" form. Lecavalier scored more when up against softer opposition than he did against the best opposition. This was no indication of his "form", only who he is facing on the ice. Similarly, the factors behind the decline of Marion's numbers are VERY different than the factors behind the decline of O'Neal.

Context is much more important than raw short term numbers.

Dude, I'm not in the mood right now. Your posts are to long, and I really don't feel like reading them now. I'm politely asking you to leave me alone. Maybe I'll read your posts later, just not right now.

Leave you alone? Does disagreeing with you equate to harassment or something? Why don't you wake up and learn that during a rational discussion people usually give reasons for their opinions, the usually don't cry and make sad attempts to belittle people who disagree.

My posts are long because I bothered to give evidence for my position rather than use you method, which was apparently to tell me to trust you, tell me that I "need to understand", and to repeatedly act superior with your little LOL comments.

II wasn't in the mood for you to to tell me I'm wrong in a mocking tone while giving zero evidence for your position and then have you whine when I respond with more substance than you deserve. Heaven forbid you take 30 seconds to read a post that might teach you something. Dude.

I'm saying I'm not in the mood for it. I'm also saying your posts are to long and I can't be bothered to read them. So what's the point of giving such long reasons when the person you're trying to convince won't even read them. And how am I crying and belittling you? I say I'm not in the mood I'll answer later and you now attack me (and you said I'm attacking you, ha) and are saying that I'm crying and junk. Stop telling me what I'm doing (I know what I'm doing better than you do), it's starting to get me angry.

I understand that length is to show your reasoning and all, but if you write such a long post that other won't bother to read, it defeats the purpose of the post in the first place. And dude, what's your problem? How is saying lol acting superior, that just makes no sense what so ever.

Now please tell me how you know my tone when I'm TYPING a message. Dude, when typing I'm the only one who knows the tone meant unless I tell you. Where do I tell you you're wrong? I give evidence for my opinion just you don't seem to accept it! Stop "belittling" me just because I don't want to read all of your essays dude. Stop trying to tell me what to do! What's your problem? If someone says something to you and you respond to them with an essay length answer and they don't want to listen and tell you that, do you go accusing them and telling them more essay length arguments?

I gave my opinion, now if I don't want to hear your opinion that's my choice. LEAVE ME ALONE.

If I wanted to read a damn slap fight I'd read the ESPN forums, dammit.

Yank your heads out of your rear ends and quit it.