|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs (Chris) on Jul 16, 2016 10:08:18 GMT -5
Defensive Rating = (Opponent's Points Allowed/ Opponent's Possessions) x 100 again somebody who claims to know what they're talking about just simply does not Please check the link I posted, which provides a full and complete explanation of the process used to determine the DRtg numbers I've been referencing. The formula you referenced is the one used to calculate the simpler version of team defensive rating. But right, I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about... Sent from my HTC One_M8 using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte Hornets (TJ) on Jul 16, 2016 10:41:55 GMT -5
Yo, listen up "chris" I'd light up Manu anyday and I've got 5 rings. Hop off whoever did this is truly amazing lol |
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs (Chris) on Aug 13, 2016 15:04:40 GMT -5
just happened to come across this article while reading some other stuff... www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/17262551/manu-ginobili-built-legacy-love-team-storied-careerit's quite long, and i doubt any of you will enjoy reading it as much as i did, but it's worth it if you have the time. i defy you to find a single teammate of kobe's who would talk about him that way, kobe who has openly admitted that "if i had a weakness" it'd be, essentially, being a shitty teammate. also, for the purposes of this debate, i proffer the following quote from one of the league's premier defensive specialists during the height of kobe's/manu's careers: "People always ask me who was hardest to guard," Raja Bell said. "I say Kobe. That is what people want to hear. But the truth is, it might have been Manu. He'd rev it to fourth gear, get by you, take it back to second gear so you'd run into him, and then he'd make a crazy floater. I made a living studying offensive players. I couldn't figure him out." pretty revealing, particularly the part about it being what people want to hear... |
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte Hornets (TJ) on Aug 14, 2016 8:53:43 GMT -5
Bruh. Just quit
|
|
|
|
Post by Yacob (freelance idiot) on Aug 14, 2016 9:05:44 GMT -5
are we really doing this again
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Bulls (Charlie) on Aug 15, 2016 0:12:43 GMT -5
yeah stfu ur back in timeout bitch
|
|
|
|
Post by Golden State Warriors (Caleb) on Aug 15, 2016 20:17:08 GMT -5
I love Manu
|
|
|
|
Post by Heat GM (Bryan) on Aug 16, 2016 0:42:55 GMT -5
Who even is Kobe Bryant? He's trash, Manus better
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs (Chris) on Aug 16, 2016 2:15:28 GMT -5
Still not hearing anything logical out of the Kobe camp, shock/disbelief/insults do no count as reasoned arguments fellas.
Manu was by far the better passer, and doesn't need to take 20-30+ shots to have a major impact. Also, he was given the choice of remaining a starter or going back to his 6th man role, after destroying the playoffs as a starter, and willingly moved back to the bench because it was better for the team's overall success. He very much did not want to, read the article if you have doubts about that.
You think Kobe would ever sacrifice his pride for the greater good of the team like that? Kobe don't give a shit, he's gonna hog the ball and take as many shots as he can no matter who he's playing with; even when he'd gotten old and was obviously not playing at the same level he continued to chuck up a ridiculous amount of ill-advised shots, to his team's detriment. Plus he's an arrogant asshole who can't get along with anyone, and if you think off court chemistry doesn't have an impact on team success, you're ignoring the evidence.
How can you question that manu would be the better choice if the goal is to build a successful team of all-time players? He's a vastly superior facilitator, a quality that would be much more important than being an inefficient high-volume scorer, particularly on such a team, and he doesn't play with the ego and shitty attitude towards his teammates that Kobe does. We've all seen superstar teams before, from Olympics to those like the Karl Malone Lakers experiment, and what are the biggest problems those teams have had? Clashing egos and stagnant offense caused by too many guys who are used to handling the ball and isolating more often, essentially everyone wanting higher usage than can realistically be given them. Who sounds like a better fit for a team like that?
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Raptors (Perk) on Aug 16, 2016 7:35:17 GMT -5
Look I'm not gonna get into an internet debate but I just am confused what you are trying to prove. One post it is that Manu is the better teammate, another is who would you rather have on your team, and yet another is that Manu is better than Kobe. The whole Raja Bell "who would you rather cover" thing doesn't convince me that Manu is a better player.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs (Chris) on Aug 16, 2016 8:32:23 GMT -5
Not sure where the confusion is coming from, as I've explained multiple times my position is that if you're trying to build a team of all time players that would actually play on court together, choosing manu over Kobe would give that team a greater chance of success; a team with manu would be more likely to win than it would with Kobe.
The Raja bell quote was meant to illustrate the fact that Kobe's perceived dominance is largely a product of what people want to see, and that those who actually know will even contribute to said perception because it's easier than getting into a debate like this. If Raja said manu when he was asked who was tougher to guard, he'd have to deal with the same type of outrage and nonsensical insults that you see on this thread.
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs (Chris) on Aug 16, 2016 10:29:24 GMT -5
here's some more evidence: manu led argentina to the FIBA world championship in 2002 and the olympic gold medal in 2004, in both cases beating team USA. that said, manu did have such hall-of-fame greats as andres nocioni, fabrico oberto, and pepe sanchez starting next to him, so i guess that takes away some of the luster; after all, it's not like team USA had lebron, wade, iverson, carmelo, duncan, etc.
wait a second...
anyone honestly believe kobe could've inspired that argentine team to beat USA if he had been in manu's place, TWICE? come on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Raptors (Perk) on Aug 16, 2016 13:08:34 GMT -5
For the record I think Kobe is a shitty teammate but each post you make on this thread has altered between the three different things I mentioned. If the argument now is you'd rather have Manu on a team of all time greats rather than Kobe, I'd second that notion because there are other superstars and I think he'd mesh well with them. Do I think an argument could be rationally made for Kobe? Yes, but keep in mind this is all hypothetical conversation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yacob (freelance idiot) on Aug 16, 2016 18:31:04 GMT -5
"evidence"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2016 0:51:59 GMT -5
If I was a player, Id take playing with Manu over Kobe any day of the week, but Kobe will single handily win you games, something Manu could not do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yacob (freelance idiot) on Aug 17, 2016 18:28:19 GMT -5
stupidest thread of all time
officially
|
|
|
|
Post by Heat GM (Bryan) on Aug 17, 2016 20:52:13 GMT -5
Honestly
Robert Hory is the greatest of all time
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs (Chris) on Aug 18, 2016 1:07:44 GMT -5
stupidest thread of all time officially You know what's really stupid? Throwing around insults and indignant, scornful, banal comments when one actually has no clue what the fuck they're talking about. Sent from my HTC One_M8 using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by Yacob (freelance idiot) on Aug 18, 2016 2:37:31 GMT -5
you are seriously the stupidest fucking person ever
thread title "better overall player"
arguments in thread: "hes a better teammate"
"an all time great team would be better off with him"
shut the fuck up you goddamn delusional fucking idiot
|
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs (Chris) on Aug 29, 2016 17:37:10 GMT -5
Yes Yacob, I call it evidence, seeing as how it's pretty direct proof (insert other synonym for evidence here) that chemistry and teamwork trump a collection of bigger name stars. Which is pretty much exactly what this whole argument has been about. Sent from my HTC One_M8 using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by Yacob (freelance idiot) on Aug 29, 2016 18:49:09 GMT -5
loose definitions of words from you somehow doesn't surprise me
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Raptors (Perk) on Aug 29, 2016 19:26:01 GMT -5
Teamwork doesn't always beat a bigger collection of superstars unless the team has superstars. I prefer a team with high chemistry and good passing over a random group of superstars. But this is once again not at all what this thread has mentioned yet as it has been about a "team player" and a (branded / perceived) "not team player." It will be great when this thread dies, it's already older than Tim Duncan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yacob (freelance idiot) on Aug 29, 2016 19:54:53 GMT -5
I prefer a team with high chemistry and good passing over a random group of superstars. the only championship i saw the Celtics win was by doing this it works. you get hall of fame talent together and they'll win. you really think lebron james and dwayne wade have skill sets that compliment each other? it almost takes a hilarious meltdown of epic proportions for it not to work...such as the Shaq/Kobe/Malone/Payton lakers, and even that shit show was goddamn close |
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs (Chris) on Aug 29, 2016 20:28:54 GMT -5
Spurs won five rings with only one "superstar", in the midst of the era of compiling superstar teams... mavericks did it with one... pistons did it with none, unless maybe you count rip Hamilton or Chauncey billups as a superstar... not everything can be explained in terms of Celtics history. That argentine team beat what was probably the greatest amalgamation of big name stars/talent in history without any superstars, twice.
Raps, seriously, go back through the thread, I've explained the argument very precisely at least twice, really don't know how you could still be confused unless it's because you're bouncing around on Yacob's jock while trying to read. Yes, the thread was poorly titled, I was drunk and irritated with Yacob's ill-mannered and obnoxious claims of expertise when he was so obviously not saying anything of substance, and was so obviously disinterested in actually having a substantive conversation, so apologies for that. Anyway, the Argentina example does directly tie in to the debate, which, for the last fucking time, is that manu would be a better choice than Kobe if you're building an all-time team to actually successfully play together.
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by Yacob (freelance idiot) on Aug 29, 2016 21:11:22 GMT -5
what's the definition of insanity again?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Raptors (Perk) on Aug 30, 2016 9:13:17 GMT -5
I prefer a team with high chemistry and good passing over a random group of superstars. the only championship i saw the Celtics win was by doing this it works. you get hall of fame talent together and they'll win. you really think lebron james and dwayne wade have skill sets that compliment each other? it almost takes a hilarious meltdown of epic proportions for it not to work...such as the Shaq/Kobe/Malone/Payton lakers, and even that shit show was goddamn close Yacob would you say that the 08 Celtics team lacked high chemistry? These concepts aren't mutually exclusive. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Raptors (Perk) on Aug 30, 2016 9:19:27 GMT -5
Spurs won five rings with only one "superstar", in the midst of the era of compiling superstar teams... mavericks did it with one... pistons did it with none, unless maybe you count rip Hamilton or Chauncey billups as a superstar... not everything can be explained in terms of Celtics history. That argentine team beat what was probably the greatest amalgamation of big name stars/talent in history without any superstars, twice. Raps, seriously, go back through the thread, I've explained the argument very precisely at least twice, really don't know how you could still be confused unless it's because you're bouncing around on Yacob's jock while trying to read. Yes, the thread was poorly titled, I was drunk and irritated with Yacob's ill-mannered and obnoxious claims of expertise when he was so obviously not saying anything of substance, and was so obviously disinterested in actually having a substantive conversation, so apologies for that. Anyway, the Argentina example does directly tie in to the debate, which, for the last fucking time, is that manu would be a better choice than Kobe if you're building an all-time team to actually successfully play together. Sent from my HTC One_M8 using proboards Everyone points the Pistons 04 team as an outlier but those other teams have at least 1 superstar. If you call this thread a precise argument, I don't think you are looking at all 4 pages of the thread. And I can relate the the drunk/irritated bullshit. Anyways my final 2 cents on the very last sentence, if you already have certain players on that all-time team, then I could see picking Manu over Kobe, depending on who those players were. |
|
|
|
Post by Yacob (freelance idiot) on Aug 30, 2016 21:07:03 GMT -5
they arent mutually exclusive but chris is still wrong and that is because he was born with an excessive amount of dark matter in his frontal lobe
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2016 23:18:59 GMT -5
Kobe is the black mamba. Period end of story, no further questions/comments should be asked. Officially shut this thread down
|
|
