Photo

WCF: OKC vs. San Antonio


  • Please log in to reply
136 replies to this topic

#121 bnickle

bnickle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,177 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 04:37 PM

Just to prove why prove is the wrong word choice, the argument is the Thunder proved they are better by winning the series, yet the Spurs would have won 35-40% of series according to Branden, thus they would have proved they were better according to that argument 35-40%. It can't work that way.

UGH :roll:

#122 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,401 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 07 June 2012 - 04:50 PM

Just to prove why prove is the wrong word choice, the argument is the Thunder proved they are better by winning the series, yet the Spurs would have won 35-40% of series according to Branden, thus they would have proved they were better according to that argument 35-40%. It can't work that way.

UGH :roll:


Sorry for pointing out what is logically true and clear. I know, it's hard to deal with.

#123 SBTarheel

SBTarheel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,851 posts
  • LocationEldersburg, Md

Posted 07 June 2012 - 05:04 PM

Thunder +130
Thunder in 6 +160

BOOM!!!

Had I bet the Thunder in 6 after San Antonio was up 2-0, I'd have gotten +260 odds...Damn.
  • BSLChrisStoner likes this
@beginthebegin71

#124 bnickle

bnickle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,177 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 05:15 PM


UGH :roll:


Sorry for pointing out what is logically true and clear. I know, it's hard to deal with.


Seriously, I mean I don't know why I'm allowing myself to be drug into this but anyway tell me at what point does a team "prove" they are better????? I mean lets take the Pacers- Heat series for example. If the Heat win that series 85% of the time does that prove they are the better team or is your only point that technically to prove you're better you have to win a series or game, match, etc 100% of the time. I mean there is never going to be a case in sports where something is 100% a lock. Whatever, I'm not going to be pulled into a pointless debate.Get technical all you want. I said, I thought the Thunder win the series more times than the Spurs would. That obviously makes me believe the Thunder are better.

#125 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,401 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 07 June 2012 - 05:21 PM

You said they proved they were the best team because they won the series. You acknowledged that in your opinion, the Spurs would win 35-40% of the time, so if this was one of those times, using your logic, the Spurs would have proved to be the better team. You don't see the issue with that?

Otherwise, I think I explained it quite well before why whomever wins a series is not necessarily the better team. I also do not concede that the Thunder would have won this series more than half of the time. I acknowledged their victory is compelling evidence, but it simply doesn't prove anything because the series could have easily gone the other way if some things that realistically could have gone differently, did go differently.

#126 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 156,542 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 05:27 PM

Getting past the idea of whether OKC proved they are better, their athleticism clearly made a difference as the series progressed.

I was impressed with how San Antonio started last night. Showed a lot of heart. Heard lots of questions today about whether they can contend again next year or not. I don't see any reason why not, though I think their depth was maximized with the shorter schedule this year. Many teams had trouble with the back-to-backs, and compressed play. The Spurs were able to excel with their deep bench. Next year, their depth might not help quite as much - though they will be able to continue to limit the minutes that Duncan, etc. get, and that does matter.

Saw Barkley saying last night that Duncan should retire. If Duncan still wants to play, I don't think he should. I thought he still showed to have more left in the tank.

#127 SBTarheel

SBTarheel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,851 posts
  • LocationEldersburg, Md

Posted 07 June 2012 - 05:31 PM

I posted on Facebook last night, that the Thunder were the most likeable teams in sports, and got a lot of feedback. Besides a few friends from Seattle who understandably don't root for them, I really think this is the type of team that casual fans could fall in love with.

I realize this has nothing to do with current discussion, but I missed a few days on the board, and thought it was a decent topic.
@beginthebegin71

#128 bnickle

bnickle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,177 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 05:35 PM

You said they proved they were the best team because they won the series. You acknowledged that in your opinion, the Spurs would win 35-40% of the time, so if this was one of those times, using your logic, the Spurs would have proved to be the better team. You don't see the issue with that?

Otherwise, I think I explained it quite well before why whomever wins a series is not necessarily the better team. I also do not concede that the Thunder would have won this series more than half of the time. I acknowledged their victory is compelling evidence, but it simply doesn't prove anything because the series could have easily gone the other way if some things that realistically could have gone differently, did go differently.


LOL. No, I don't have irrefutable evidence that the Thunder are the better team so technically they haven't proved they are the better team. Neither has pretty much any team vs any other team in the history of sports. It's my theory that they are the better team in part based on the series win last night.

I'm off to go chop down a few trees now and the sap is on your hands.

#129 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 156,542 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 05:42 PM

I posted on Facebook last night, that the Thunder were the most likeable teams in sports, and got a lot of feedback. Besides a few friends from Seattle who understandably don't root for them, I really think this is the type of team that casual fans could fall in love with.

I realize this has nothing to do with current discussion, but I missed a few days on the board, and thought it was a decent topic.


It is a great topic. I've barely followed the NBA since Jordan left the Bulls. I mean, I've watched playoffs... but only casually cared. I thought the playoffs last year were really fun. Particularly the play of OKC, Memphis, and the Bulls. Interest from that carried over to the regular season this year for me.

I did not watch a ton, but I watched more than I had in many years. Love watching OKC play, especially in-front of their home crowd. Seeing Westbrook re-up was pretty cool as well, because you can picture them being together for sometime. The fact that the Thunder stars all seem to be interesting, intelligent guys does not hurt either.

#130 SBTarheel

SBTarheel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,851 posts
  • LocationEldersburg, Md

Posted 07 June 2012 - 05:46 PM

I posted on Facebook last night, that the Thunder were the most likeable teams in sports, and got a lot of feedback. Besides a few friends from Seattle who understandably don't root for them, I really think this is the type of team that casual fans could fall in love with.

I realize this has nothing to do with current discussion, but I missed a few days on the board, and thought it was a decent topic.


It is a great topic. I've barely followed the NBA since Jordan left the Bulls. I mean, I've watched playoffs... but only casually cared. I thought the playoffs last year were really fun. Particularly the play of OKC, Memphis, and the Bulls. Interest from that carried over to the regular season this year for me.

I did not watch a ton, but I watched more than I had in many years. Love watching OKC play, especially in-front of their home crowd. Seeing Westbrook re-up was pretty cool as well, because you can picture them being together for sometime. The fact that the Thunder stars all seem to be interesting, intelligent guys does not hurt either.


They are so much fun to watch, and I dare anyone not to love Kevin Durant. I mean, come on, the guy HUGS HIS MOM after every win..It's fantastic! He may never win an MVP while LeBron is in the league, but the guy scores unlike anyone I've seen in a long time.
@beginthebegin71

#131 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,401 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 07 June 2012 - 06:07 PM

You said they proved they were the best team because they won the series. You acknowledged that in your opinion, the Spurs would win 35-40% of the time, so if this was one of those times, using your logic, the Spurs would have proved to be the better team. You don't see the issue with that?

Otherwise, I think I explained it quite well before why whomever wins a series is not necessarily the better team. I also do not concede that the Thunder would have won this series more than half of the time. I acknowledged their victory is compelling evidence, but it simply doesn't prove anything because the series could have easily gone the other way if some things that realistically could have gone differently, did go differently.


LOL. No, I don't have irrefutable evidence that the Thunder are the better team so technically they haven't proved they are the better team. Neither has pretty much any team vs any other team in the history of sports. It's my theory that they are the better team in part based on the series win last night.

I'm off to go chop down a few trees now and the sap is on your hands.


I love when people use a word that has a specific meaning which suggests something very different than what they may intend to say, but then get upset when someone disagrees with the actual meaning of what they said.

You want to UGH and all, but you could have just said what you did right here, that yeah, they didn't prove it, yet you stuck with it for some reason.

You may not get why I took issue with the word prove and I don't get why someone does what I just described. I guess whatever common ground we found at the game has been eroded. :lol:

Funny last line.

#132 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,401 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 07 June 2012 - 06:13 PM

I posted on Facebook last night, that the Thunder were the most likeable teams in sports, and got a lot of feedback. Besides a few friends from Seattle who understandably don't root for them, I really think this is the type of team that casual fans could fall in love with.

I realize this has nothing to do with current discussion, but I missed a few days on the board, and thought it was a decent topic.


It is a great topic. I've barely followed the NBA since Jordan left the Bulls. I mean, I've watched playoffs... but only casually cared. I thought the playoffs last year were really fun. Particularly the play of OKC, Memphis, and the Bulls. Interest from that carried over to the regular season this year for me.

I did not watch a ton, but I watched more than I had in many years. Love watching OKC play, especially in-front of their home crowd. Seeing Westbrook re-up was pretty cool as well, because you can picture them being together for sometime. The fact that the Thunder stars all seem to be interesting, intelligent guys does not hurt either.


I'm glad you're more into the NBA now and I agree that the Thunder are fun to watch.

As an aside, I think it's interesting that a lot of people lost interest in the NBA after MJ, and many of those same people cite one of the reasons as their being to much one on one play in the league, which exists to the extent it does in large part due to the influence of MJ.

#133 bnickle

bnickle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,177 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 06:15 PM



LOL. No, I don't have irrefutable evidence that the Thunder are the better team so technically they haven't proved they are the better team. Neither has pretty much any team vs any other team in the history of sports. It's my theory that they are the better team in part based on the series win last night.

I'm off to go chop down a few trees now and the sap is on your hands.


I love when people use a word that has a specific meaning which suggests something very different than what they may intend to say, but then get upset when someone disagrees with the actual meaning of what they said.

You want to UGH and all, but you could have just said what you did right here, that yeah, they didn't prove it, yet you stuck with it for some reason.

You may not get why I took issue with the word prove and I don't get why someone does what I just described. I guess whatever common ground we found at the game has been eroded. :lol:

Funny last line.

Dude, I understood your point when you made it the first time last night and I didn't feel the need to respond. You pissed me off because you had to make a whole new post again today to point out my miswording . I took that as you either trying to show me up or trying to bait me.

#134 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,401 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 07 June 2012 - 06:24 PM

Not trying to do either. How was I supposed to know you got my point?

#135 bnickle

bnickle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,177 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 06:35 PM

Not trying to do either. How was I supposed to know you got my point?



Does it matter?? There was no need to make a second consecutive post pointing out the same thing. I had the right to not respond. I fail to understand reiterating your point in the 2nd post if you weren't trying to show me up or bait me. Whatever, lets drop it because it's making me more and more angry.

#136 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,401 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 07 June 2012 - 06:40 PM

Not trying to do either. How was I supposed to know you got my point?



Does it matter?? There was no need to make a second consecutive post pointing out the same thing. I had the right to not respond. I fail to understand reiterating your point in the 2nd post if you weren't trying to show me up or bait me. Whatever, lets drop it because it's making me more and more angry.


Not sure why you're so upset over this. I was just trying to develop my point further. Simple as that. I wasn't attacking you or anything.

#137 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 11 June 2012 - 10:30 AM

I posted on Facebook last night, that the Thunder were the most likeable teams in sports, and got a lot of feedback. Besides a few friends from Seattle who understandably don't root for them, I really think this is the type of team that casual fans could fall in love with.

I realize this has nothing to do with current discussion, but I missed a few days on the board, and thought it was a decent topic.

It's funny to me how people in other cities(not Seattle) refuse to root for the Thunder because they left Seattle. I hope one of "your" teams didn't abandon their initial city. It's one of those I feel bad unless "my" city is benefiting type deals.

It would've been nice had Seattle stayed, but the NBA isn't a charity. I blame Schultz more than I blame Bennett(and other OKC owners). It was pretty naive to think they wouldn't move the team when he sold it to bunch of businessmen from OKC and as part of the deal only asked them to give one year to make a "good faith" effort.
@levineps




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=