bww Wrote:I watched most of this series, and have come to the conclusion that Garnett is not as dominate as Duncan has been in the past. Garnett would get the ball down low on the block and was not able to get to the rim, rather he'd dribble the ball, turn left and dribble to the center of the lane and then put up a short jumper. Duncan on the other hand, will face the basket, fake and go to the rim on a much more consistant basis. Garnett is a fine player, but to call him the best PF ever is a stretch.

his back to the basket moves are far inferior, there's no doubt about that. But if his offense was as inferior as you make it sound, their numbers wouldn't be so close. Look at their FG percentages and ppg, they're basically identical.

Other than having 3 more rings, i don't see any reasonable argument for stating that duncan is unequivocally better. IMO, it's 6 or 1/2 dozen.

flyingswoosh Wrote:

bww Wrote:I watched most of this series, and have come to the conclusion that Garnett is not as dominate as Duncan has been in the past. Garnett would get the ball down low on the block and was not able to get to the rim, rather he'd dribble the ball, turn left and dribble to the center of the lane and then put up a short jumper. Duncan on the other hand, will face the basket, fake and go to the rim on a much more consistant basis. Garnett is a fine player, but to call him the best PF ever is a stretch.

his back to the basket moves are far inferior, there's no doubt about that. But if his offense was as inferior as you make it sound, their numbers wouldn't be so close. Look at their FG percentages and ppg, they're basically identical.

Other than having 3 more rings, i don't see any reasonable argument for stating that duncan is unequivocally better. IMO, it's 6 or 1/2 dozen.

The thing that got to me was that Garnett should have dominated whomever was guarding him during this series, with him facing the basket, and he didn't or couldn't do it. I think he is a great player, and perhaps he didn't need to do those things, but given the choice, I'd rather have Magic Johnson playing PF than KG. I am also not saying that Duncan is unequivocally better, IMO he is - that's not saying much since I don't get paid for my opinion.

Quote:given the choice, I'd rather have Magic Johnson playing PF than KG.

c'mon now, do you really want to lose all credibility? I'll give you the chance to take that back, and we'll both forget it was ever said.

I'll never take that back. Before you were born, he played center for one game and was as dominate as a player ever could be down low.

flyingswoosh Wrote:

blah Wrote:[sarcasm]You were right all along flyingswoosh. That was an exciting series. And that series clincher, I couldn't turn away, even for a second....[/sarcasm]

yeah, i'd much rather watch soccer. nothing like seeing the ball go in the net 2 times/game. Or maybe i could watch college basketball where the bulk of each possession is spent 10 feet beyond the 3 pt line.

I guess that was my point. I really don't like soccer that much, yet I found it more interesting than the NBA playoffs.

Also, to your other point, does scoring a lot really make the NBA "exciting"? Hell, 40% of the points scored are from the free throw line...."ooooh the excitement". Hockey probably averages 60-70 shots per game. The NBA probably about 200.

Even though there were probably 1,000+ made FG's that I saw, I can only recall about about 4-5 plays from the NBA playoffs that I was really impressed with (Jason Maxiell's block of KG was #1 for me and it wasn't even a made shot).

Maybe if you understood the rules of hockey, you would like it better.

Quote:Maybe if you understood the rules of hockey, you would like it better.

i love how everyone always says that to people like me who dislike certain sports. I know the rules well enough. I know about offsides, icing, 2 line passes, line changes and a bunch of penalties. I also know about the changes they've made to the game in order to open it up, which has resulted in the near-complete disappearance of the role of enforcer. Yet even with those changes, i tried to watch the triple OT penguins-Red wings game and couldn't. There'd be a build up of excitement and then a let down because some player took a shot and missed by 10 feet.

flyingswoosh Wrote:

Quote:Maybe if you understood the rules of hockey, you would like it better.

i love how everyone always says that to people like me who dislike certain sports. I know the rules well enough. I know about offsides, icing, 2 line passes, line changes and a bunch of penalties. I also know about the changes they've made to the game in order to open it up, which has resulted in the near-complete disappearance of the role of enforcer. Yet even with those changes, i tried to watch the triple OT penguins-Red wings game and couldn't. There'd be a build up of excitement and then a let down because some player took a shot and missed by 10 feet.

1. There are no 2 line passes in hockey anymore.

2. The role of enforcer is still prevalent, it is just necessary for that enforcer to have some hockey skills as well.

3. Playoff OT games are probably the least exciting to watch as they play until someone wins (i.e. they go to a shoot out in regular season games). You can imagine how much energy the players have after playing essentially the equivalent of two back to back games with no time off.

Quote:1. There are no 2 line passes in hockey anymore.

2. The role of enforcer is still prevalent, it is just necessary for that enforcer to have some hockey skills as well.

3. Playoff OT games are probably the least exciting to watch as they play until someone wins (i.e. they go to a shoot out in regular season games). You can imagine how much energy the players have after playing essentially the equivalent of two back to back games with no time off.

1) i realize that. i was just mentioning the change.
2) I realize this as well. What i meant is that the big hulking players with no hockey skills, are a dying breed.
3) why the hell would i want to watch a shootout? What a stupid idea. maybe extra inning baseball games should be decided with a HR derby.

flyingswoosh Wrote:

Quote:1. There are no 2 line passes in hockey anymore.

2. The role of enforcer is still prevalent, it is just necessary for that enforcer to have some hockey skills as well.

3. Playoff OT games are probably the least exciting to watch as they play until someone wins (i.e. they go to a shoot out in regular season games). You can imagine how much energy the players have after playing essentially the equivalent of two back to back games with no time off.

1) i realize that. i was just mentioning the change.
2) I realize this as well. What i meant is that the big hulking players with no hockey skills, are a dying breed.
3) why the hell would i want to watch a shootout? What a stupid idea. maybe extra inning baseball games should be decided with a HR derby.

I've watched a 20 inning game. They should have had a HR derby. It would have been far more interesting.

blah Wrote:

flyingswoosh Wrote:

Quote:1. There are no 2 line passes in hockey anymore.

2. The role of enforcer is still prevalent, it is just necessary for that enforcer to have some hockey skills as well.

3. Playoff OT games are probably the least exciting to watch as they play until someone wins (i.e. they go to a shoot out in regular season games). You can imagine how much energy the players have after playing essentially the equivalent of two back to back games with no time off.

1) i realize that. i was just mentioning the change.
2) I realize this as well. What i meant is that the big hulking players with no hockey skills, are a dying breed.
3) why the hell would i want to watch a shootout? What a stupid idea. maybe extra inning baseball games should be decided with a HR derby.

I've watched a 20 inning game. They should have had a HR derby. It would have been far more interesting.

yeah, great idea, it definitely wouldn't have sent the message that all those innings were pointless.

flyingswoosh Wrote:

blah Wrote:

flyingswoosh Wrote:

Quote:1. There are no 2 line passes in hockey anymore.

2. The role of enforcer is still prevalent, it is just necessary for that enforcer to have some hockey skills as well.

3. Playoff OT games are probably the least exciting to watch as they play until someone wins (i.e. they go to a shoot out in regular season games). You can imagine how much energy the players have after playing essentially the equivalent of two back to back games with no time off.

1) i realize that. i was just mentioning the change.
2) I realize this as well. What i meant is that the big hulking players with no hockey skills, are a dying breed.
3) why the hell would i want to watch a shootout? What a stupid idea. maybe extra inning baseball games should be decided with a HR derby.

I've watched a 20 inning game. They should have had a HR derby. It would have been far more interesting.

yeah, great idea, it definitely wouldn't have sent the message that all those innings were pointless.

And playing another 11 does?

MemphisTigerFreak Wrote:celtics in 6. Any team with pow gas-hole can't win.

Woohoo!

blah Wrote:

flyingswoosh Wrote:

blah Wrote:

flyingswoosh Wrote:

Quote:1. There are no 2 line passes in hockey anymore.

2. The role of enforcer is still prevalent, it is just necessary for that enforcer to have some hockey skills as well.

3. Playoff OT games are probably the least exciting to watch as they play until someone wins (i.e. they go to a shoot out in regular season games). You can imagine how much energy the players have after playing essentially the equivalent of two back to back games with no time off.

1) i realize that. i was just mentioning the change.
2) I realize this as well. What i meant is that the big hulking players with no hockey skills, are a dying breed.
3) why the hell would i want to watch a shootout? What a stupid idea. maybe extra inning baseball games should be decided with a HR derby.

I've watched a 20 inning game. They should have had a HR derby. It would have been far more interesting.

yeah, great idea, it definitely wouldn't have sent the message that all those innings were pointless.

And playing another 11 does?

yes. A game should end with every facet being played, not with one tiny part of it. a HR derby would basically say that defense and pitching are worth less than hitting.

flyingswoosh Wrote:

blah Wrote:

flyingswoosh Wrote:

blah Wrote:

flyingswoosh Wrote:

Quote:1. There are no 2 line passes in hockey anymore.

2. The role of enforcer is still prevalent, it is just necessary for that enforcer to have some hockey skills as well.

3. Playoff OT games are probably the least exciting to watch as they play until someone wins (i.e. they go to a shoot out in regular season games). You can imagine how much energy the players have after playing essentially the equivalent of two back to back games with no time off.

1) i realize that. i was just mentioning the change.
2) I realize this as well. What i meant is that the big hulking players with no hockey skills, are a dying breed.
3) why the hell would i want to watch a shootout? What a stupid idea. maybe extra inning baseball games should be decided with a HR derby.

I've watched a 20 inning game. They should have had a HR derby. It would have been far more interesting.

yeah, great idea, it definitely wouldn't have sent the message that all those innings were pointless.

And playing another 11 does?

yes. A game should end with every facet being played, not with one tiny part of it. a HR derby would basically say that defense and pitching are worth less than hitting.

Or maybe it would say, "We already spent 9 innings trying to play this game the conventional way, which didn't work and we have 161 more to go, so let's find a way to end it. Is that any worse that using the All-Star game to determine home field advantage for the World Series?

Quote:Or maybe it would say, "We already spent 9 innings trying to play this game the conventional way, which didn't work and we have 161 more to go, so let's find a way to end it. Is that any worse that using the All-Star game to determine home field advantage for the World Series?

no, it's not worse, it's also not better. That all star game rule is retarded. perhaps you thought i liked that rule? If you did, you were wrong.

I love how you also say, "we already spend 9 innings playing this game the conventional way..." Already spent 9 innings? That's not a lot. I'm sure you realize how many incredible/historical games were won in extra innings? Most recently i remember the amazing astros vs. braves 17 innings game won by homer from chris burke. That game was incredible. Ending a game with a HR derby would send a "you're useless" message to the pitchers. Just like ending a hockey game with a shootout would tell the defenseman how much less they're worth than the offensive centers.

flyingswoosh Wrote:

Quote:Or maybe it would say, "We already spent 9 innings trying to play this game the conventional way, which didn't work and we have 161 more to go, so let's find a way to end it. Is that any worse that using the All-Star game to determine home field advantage for the World Series?

no, it's not worse, it's also not better. That all star game rule is retarded. perhaps you thought i liked that rule? If you did, you were wrong.

I love how you also say, "we already spend 9 innings playing this game the conventional way..." Already spent 9 innings? That's not a lot. I'm sure you realize how many incredible/historical games were won in extra innings? Most recently i remember the amazing astros vs. braves 17 innings game won by homer from chris burke. That game was incredible. Ending a game with a HR derby would send a "you're useless" message to the pitchers. Just like ending a hockey game with a shootout would tell the defenseman how much less they're worth than the offensive centers.

Defensemen can shoot in a shootout.

Also, I wasn't presuming that you thought the All-Star rule was a good one, only that every sport has its dumb rules and that one or two dumb rules doesn't relegate the entire sport to the dumb heap.

Quote:Defensemen can shoot in a shootout.

i realize that, but the most important part of a defenseman's game is his defense. A lot of people don't realize how important defense is in hockey and also how much defense can do for a goalie and his stats.

Quote:Also, I wasn't presuming that you thought the All-Star rule was a good one, only that every sport has its dumb rules and that one or two dumb rules doesn't relegate the entire sport to the dumb heap.

Hold up, don't put words in my mouth. I never said hockey was dumb, i just said it was boring. I also never said that the shootout is what makes hockey boring. I started this tangent when i said how boring i found the triple OT game. I didn't mean that the lengthy OT was boring, i meant hockey as a whole is boring. I was just using that game as an example because it's basically the only time i've watched hockey this whole year.