The 'Stons Journey Back to the Postseason...

Cavs are so flaky, I'd say the Stons would do well to get in there and beat 'em. I will not be shocked if the Cavs lose prior to the ECF, I will not be shocked if they win it all. Well, mildly shocked if they win it all.
 
Talk around town, just sports gabbing not anyone who knows anything, is how the Cavs keep laying down against the heat and Bron is all smiles about it, like no biggie. He also has blocked the Cavs and their announcers, etc. on Twitter. He stays out of trouble, but he can still be a strange dude.
 
B.A.R. said:
Larry likes to argue, it is his mantra, we all know it. It is what it is. I just want to see facts.

I do disagree with you though, this 'Stons team would do well to get into a series with the Cavs and get that experience. Playoff basketball is so different.
Click to expand...

I love this about this place. Why is it always that I'M the one who likes to argue? Doesn't it take two to tango? And aren't pretty much 75% of the threads on here people arguing about something?

I do like to discuss things intelligently, I apologize, though I really shouldn't have to apologize for that. It'd be much better if we all just made shit up and everyone agreed that whatever was made up was true and we all just sucked each other's dicks in every thread. Yep, that's sounds much better. Lol
 
B.A.R. said:
Larry likes to argue, it is his mantra, we all know it. It is what it is. I just want to see facts.

I do disagree with you though, this 'Stons team would do well to get into a series with the Cavs and get that experience. Playoff basketball is so different.
Click to expand...

Wait though, you want to see facts? Again, you're the one with the assertion, you need to show your facts.

I also just listed the top 3 NBA champions in league history with the least amount of experience. One of those teams was somehow an example for "your side."
 
Lar, you're good, no worries. We all argue. To say it matters 0% in the NBA puts you on a CTG island. It's OK, I've been there, the threads float away from the island. (Don't bump that Duke lacrosse thread.)
 
tipyerbartender said:
Lar, you're good, no worries. We all argue. To say it matters 0% in the NBA puts you on a CTG island. It's OK, I've been there, the threads float away from the island. (Don't bump that Duke lacrosse thread.)
Click to expand...

I've never said it matters 0%. I initially stated that it was over rated. It is.

In the NBA, you're extremely hard pressed to find just one playoff team with literally zero experience. That fact alone lessens the impact that "playoff experience" has...how much "playoff experience" is necessary to become a winning team is where you arrive at next. How much is enough? Do teams that continually lose, yet pile up more playoff experience (in games) and then eventually win one (probably not the same group of guys anyway) prove that experience counts because they've racked up more games of playoff experience than a team who would hypothetically make the playoffs for 2 years, get swept both years, and then win the title? Or does that prove that it probably wasn't the experience that helped that team who was swept twice finally win, it was probably the fact they became more talented?

I also don't know why it's always "arguing" either. Why are we not just discussing something, or even debating it? We are all reading and writing words on the internet...the people who somehow think they have the ability to ascertain everyone's tone in what they are saying is what is really interesting to me. Lots of soothsayers on here.
 
Lareux said:
I've never said it matters 0%. I initially stated that it was over rated. It is.

In the NBA, you're extremely hard pressed to find just one playoff team with literally zero experience.
Click to expand...

Ahh, but we weren't arguing about 0 experience, we were, spirit of the argument if you're being honest, arguing about whether a core of a team can benefit from getting its feet wet and teeth kicked in in the NBA playoffs. I think it can. I can't quantify it.
 
I will argue that "arguing" and "debating" and "discussing" is a matter of nuance and semantics. Mostly semantics on the internet.
 
tipyerbartender said:
Ahh, but we weren't arguing about 0 experience, we were, spirit of the argument if you're being honest, arguing about whether a core of a team can benefit from getting its feet wet and teeth kicked in in the NBA playoffs. I think it can. I can't quantify it.
Click to expand...

To be really fair, we initially were "arguing" about whether it benefited a team more to get their teeth kicked in (and have that "experience") or to have a chance, however small, at the #1 overall pick.

Let's use the Pistons as the example. Do you honestly think that they will play better next year, and advance further in the playoffs if they make it this year and get swept as opposed to not making it at all?
 
Lareux said:
To be really fair, we initially were "arguing" about whether it benefited a team more to get their teeth kicked in (and have that "experience") or to have a chance, however small, at the #1 overall pick.

Let's use the Pistons as the example. Do you honestly think that they will play better next year, and advance further in the playoffs if they make it this year and get swept as opposed to not making it at all?
Click to expand...

I do think it would benefit them, opinion, unless they hit the 2% lottery, which would benefit them more. But you can't really count on 2%. You can just call it lucky later.
 
What about the Cavs from last year as an example? Outside of LeBron, they had virtually no playoff experience (Kyrie and Love had literally none). They made the Finals and simply ran into the fucking buzz saw that was the Warriors (they were also pretty banged up and were missing a key piece). Had they won the title, would the people claiming playoff experience matters so much have changed their opinion and then opined that it doesn't matter at all? Or would LeBron's experience, when shown in how many games of experience he had, "carry over" to the other teammates and prove to those people that they were right all along and experience matters a lot?
 
I brought the Cavs up very early as an uncommon exception. The 2014/2015 Cavs were an overhaul, a "big three" or whatever. I don't think it applies here.
 
tipyerbartender said:
I do think it would benefit them, opinion, unless they hit the 2% lottery, which would benefit them more. But you can't really count on 2%. You can just call it lucky later.
Click to expand...

Right, you can't count on 2%, I agree.

So, let's assume they don't win the lottery and end up with the 13th pick (or whichever pick you'd like)...them making it this year and getting swept will mean that much more to them than not making the playoffs at all? So, their team will play better next year, and maybe even advance in the playoffs, because they were swept in May 2016 and not because they've just gotten better and grown more as a team with chemistry, etc?
 
tipyerbartender said:
I brought the Cavs up very early as an uncommon exception. The 2014/2015 Cavs were an overhaul, a "big three" or whatever. I don't think it applies here.
Click to expand...

It has to. Love and Kyrie had literally ZERO playoff experience.

Of course I realize they didn't win the title, but if they had...I'm just curious as to how it would have been portrayed by those claiming that playoff experience is extremely valuable.
 
Lareux said:
Right, you can't count on 2%, I agree.

So, let's assume they don't win the lottery and end up with the 13th pick (or whichever pick you'd like)...them making it this year and getting swept will mean that much more to them than not making the playoffs at all? So, their team will play better next year, and maybe even advance in the playoffs, because they were swept in May 2016 and not because they've just gotten better and grown more as a team with chemistry, etc?
Click to expand...

Yes. I think their playoff experience will help, never hurt. The most talented surgeon in the world must first perform his first emergency surgery. If I'm on the table, I'd prefer to be like his 100th emergency surgery.
 
Lareux said:
It has to. Love and Kyrie had literally ZERO playoff experience.

Of course I realize they didn't win the title, but if they had...I'm just curious as to how it would have been portrayed by those claiming that playoff experience is extremely valuable.
Click to expand...

It's a shitty example, Lar. Love got knocked out in series one, Kyrie got hurt in series two, disabled in game one of the finals. Kyrie wasn't playing a lot. The guy who's been to five straight finals dragged them almost to the finish line.
 
tipyerbartender said:
Yes. I think their playoff experience will help, never hurt. The most talented surgeon in the world must first perform his first emergency surgery. If I'm on the table, I'd prefer to be like his 100th emergency surgery.
Click to expand...

Will it help more than them having the shot at the #1 pick in any given year? If they got the #1 pick, would you think they'd be better off the following year than the same team without that #1 pick and 4 games of "playoff experience?" THAT is the question. If you can't quantify it (not you in particular), then how can you not opt for the chance at the #1 pick...and the impact of which can be quantified?
 
tipyerbartender said:
It's a shitty example, Lar. Love got knocked out in series one, Kyrie got hurt in series two, disabled in game one of the finals. Kyrie wasn't playing a lot. The guy who's been to five straight finals dragged them almost to the finish line.
Click to expand...

Right....and they STILL made it to the Finals, even with those injuries. That doesn't take away from the example, it lends to the point. They were going to win that series because they had the better players and made more plays, not because they had "playoff experience."
 
Playoff experience is just such a cliche that players and coaches (some analysts) love to throw around. Why is this one cliche taken at face value (the only 'proof' thus far has been that players point to their playoff experience as a factor), while the literally dozens of other cliches that athletes used are seen for what they are (cliches)? I mean almost all athletes and coaches these days conduct all of their interviews in cliches...every single interview sounds similar regardless of the team being interviewed...yet somehow this one cliche is the one that is being taken for more than it is?
 
Lareux said:
Will it help more than them having the shot at the #1 pick in any given year? If they got the #1 pick, would you think they'd be better off the following year than the same team without that #1 pick and 4 games of "playoff experience?" THAT is the question. If you can't quantify it (not you in particular), then how can you not opt for the chance at the #1 pick...and the impact of which can be quantified?
Click to expand...

Lol. I can't quantify it like 2%, but I can decide/think/surmise, hell guess at whether a playoff series will help steel a young team. I'm going with higher than 2%.
 
Lar on the operating table, needs lifesaving surgery.

Nurse says we have two docs, one's a bit of a drunk but can do this surgery in his sleep. He's killed a couple guys out of 5000. Other guy's the most promising surgeon we've ever seen. But he's never done this.

Lar: Give me the prodigy.
 
tipyerbartender said:
Lol. I can't quantify it like 2%, but I can decide/think/surmise, hell guess at whether a playoff series will help steel a young team. I'm going with higher than 2%.
Click to expand...

Higher than 2% of what though...lol?

Getting swept in 4 games, with an average defeat of 15 points...that will somehow help steel a young team? It's just ludicrous to even say out loud.
 
Lareux said:
Right....and they STILL made it to the Finals, even with those injuries. That doesn't take away from the example, it lends to the point. They were going to win that series because they had the better players and made more plays, not because they had "playoff experience."
Click to expand...

They were going to win which series ... because of what? The Celtics??? It was a 7-2 series. The guy with pretty much the most playoff experience in NBA history flipped a switch and played playoff basketball. By your argument, shouldn't the Hawks have fared a little better last season?
 
tipyerbartender said:
Lar on the operating table, needs lifesaving surgery.

Nurse says we have two docs, one's a bit of a drunk but can do this surgery in his sleep. He's killed a couple guys out of 5000. Other guy's the most promising surgeon we've ever seen. But he's never done this.

Lar: Give me the prodigy.
Click to expand...

But that's just "experience" which I wouldn't disagree with, that seems to be proven over time. We are, for some reason, holding "playoff experience" over just experience in general....that is my point.
 
Lareux said:
Higher than 2% of what though...lol?

Getting swept in 4 games, with an average defeat of 15 points...that will somehow help steel a young team? It's just ludicrous to even say out loud.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's ludicrous. To say out loud or inside or inside voice.
 
tipyerbartender said:
They were going to win which series ... because of what? The Celtics??? It was a 7-2 series. The guy with pretty much the most playoff experience in NBA history flipped a switch and played playoff basketball. By your argument, shouldn't the Hawks have fared a little better last season?
Click to expand...

No, my argument isn't that teams with less playoff experience do better, it's that playoff experience is a cliche and simply over rated. Don't start moving the goalposts Tip. I've made myself pretty clear, no need to twist words and come up with crazy hypothetical examples that try to pigeon hole one into an answer.
 
Lareux said:
But that's just "experience" which I wouldn't disagree with, that seems to be proven over time. We are, for some reason, holding "playoff experience" over just experience in general....that is my point.
Click to expand...

No. It's emergency surgery experience, life or death.

We'll say scheduled surgery = regular season, we'll say emergency surgery = playoffs.
 
tipyerbartender said:
No. It's emergency surgery experience, life or death.

We'll say scheduled surgery = regular season, we'll say emergency surgery = playoffs.
Click to expand...

That distinction means nothing based on your initial question. I'm confused now.

I'd take the guy with more experience in that example.

If you want to give another example, with what you just said, and it was one surgeon with 2,000 scheduled surgeries and a dozen emergency ones vs. a guy with 200 schedule surgeries and 50 emergency surgeries....I'll take the guy with more experience overall. Who would you pick?
 
Another also.

I don't even consider myself an avid NBA fan compared to some other sports, but as a former avid NBA fan and a lifelong observer, the difference in intensity between regular season games and playoff games is so extreme, it's almost two different sports. All pro sports kick it up in the playoffs, but the NBA is no comparison. Defense is played in the first 42 minutes for the first time all year. Even a guy on the couch can see this. So you can't tell me that that particular "experience", since it's new and unique, doesn't register. They're not robots.
 
Lareux said:
That distinction means nothing based on your initial question. I'm confused now.

I'd take the guy with more experience in that example.

If you want to give another example, with what you just said, and it was one surgeon with 2,000 scheduled surgeries and a dozen emergency ones vs. a guy with 200 schedule surgeries and 50 emergency surgeries....I'll take the guy with more experience overall. Who would you pick?
Click to expand...

No, you're missing it. Clusterfuck life guy who can do it in his sleep vs. prodigy who has never done it. Like, I don't know, an emergency appendectomy. The prodigy has only done scheduled appendectomies. Do they have those, I'm a medical idiot.
 
CTG Debate team really working this thread over.

Who would have thunk a Pistons thread would hit 4 pages and counting, quite the feat.
 
When Lar and I are being stubborn, we can turn a Pistons thread into something magical.
 
Lareux said:
To be really fair, we initially were "arguing" about whether it benefited a team more to get their teeth kicked in (and have that "experience") or to have a chance, however small, at the #1 overall pick.

Let's use the Pistons as the example. Do you honestly think that they will play better next year, and advance further in the playoffs if they make it this year and get swept as opposed to not making it at all?
Click to expand...
1000% yes
 
I just want to assure BAR this isn't a lifelong thing, commenting on anything and everything in the Pistons thread. This isn't the Tigers' thread. Tribe does look good.
 
I need to prove nothing Larry. You have the opposing viewpoint. Therefore, bring facts instead of going against the grain.
 
B.A.R. said:
I need to prove nothing Larry. You have the opposing viewpoint. Therefore, bring facts instead of going against the grain.
Click to expand...

He's going to ask you to quantify it.

Lar, quantify your pain tolerance. Or your boiling point. Or your rock bottom. Or your level of remorse when puppies get run over. I want you to quantify it. I can't quantify mine, I just know I have those things. But I'm asking you to quantify yours.
 
tipyerbartender said:
Another also.

I don't even consider myself an avid NBA fan compared to some other sports, but as a former avid NBA fan and a lifelong observer, the difference in intensity between regular season games and playoff games is so extreme, it's almost two different sports. All pro sports kick it up in the playoffs, but the NBA is no comparison. Defense is played in the first 42 minutes for the first time all year. Even a guy on the couch can see this. So you can't tell me that that particular "experience", since it's new and unique, doesn't register. They're not robots.
Click to expand...

But getting blown out for 4 straight games would be valuable experience? In which way?
 
Lareux said:
But getting blown out for 4 straight games would be valuable experience? In which way?
Click to expand...

Do you believe in the possibility of learning experiences, or do they need to be quantified, qualified, certified, sorted, approved, notarized, and validated?
 
B.A.R. said:
I need to prove nothing Larry. You have the opposing viewpoint. Therefore, bring facts instead of going against the grain.
Click to expand...

First, I don't have THE opposing viewpoint, I'm not the only one who has the opinion. Weren't you in the other thread about this saying it was no contest that a team should take the chance at the pick as opposed to getting swept as an 8 seed? Did you change your opinion?

You're also asking me to prove a negative, regardless of whether or not it's "against the grain" in this thread. The claim is that playoff experience is invaluable. That is who the proof is on, not the people saying it's not.

I've also pointed to the teams with the 3 fewest games of "playoff experience" and somehow, one of those teams (the 2004 Pistsons) were being touted as an example for gaining playoff experience and then winning. Well, they can't both be true.

Is there a game limit a team needs to win? Is there a certain number of players who need a certain amount of experience? What if the team breaks up before they win after gaining some "playoff experience?" Does the counter go back to zero for that team?

You guys are saying it matters....show some type of proof of how it matters at all. And again, in the NBA, you'd be pretty hard pressed to find many teams with little to no playoff experience (which is why the entire argument is a self fulfilling prophecy) since half of the league makes the playoffs and rosters spots are played like musical chairs.
 
tipyerbartender said:
Do you believe in the possibility of learning experiences, or do they need to be quantified, qualified, certified, sorted, approved, notarized, and validated?
Click to expand...

Yes, learning experience for sure (I already said that Tip, you're being obtuse again). As I already stated, EXPERIENCE itself is what makes them better, not necessarily PLAYOFF experience. I know you don't like to read too much of what others say, but literally a dozen or so posts up I just said the same thing.
 
tipyerbartender said:
He's going to ask you to quantify it.

Lar, quantify your pain tolerance. Or your boiling point. Or your rock bottom. Or your level of remorse when puppies get run over. I want you to quantify it. I can't quantify mine, I just know I have those things. But I'm asking you to quantify yours.
Click to expand...

You do know pain tolerance can be quantified right? Also most likely the other examples you just gave, but that one was funny to me.

And I know you're trying to be funny, but if someone tells you something is worth a certain amount, you would clearly ask them why/how it's worth that much. That is quantifying Tip. Every single thing you've ever been told has a value in your life has been quantified for you at one point or another. But this crazy cliche that isn't much more than a cliche is being taken at face value...yet no one can even begin to explain why. I'm not asking for the formula, I'm asking for SOME type of proof, at all, that it exists.
 
Lareux said:
First, I don't have THE opposing viewpoint, I'm not the only one who has the opinion. Weren't you in the other thread about this saying it was no contest that a team should take the chance at the pick as opposed to getting swept as an 8 seed? Did you change your opinion?

You're also asking me to prove a negative, regardless of whether or not it's "against the grain" in this thread. The claim is that playoff experience is invaluable. That is who the proof is on, not the people saying it's not.

I've also pointed to the teams with the 3 fewest games of "playoff experience" and somehow, one of those teams (the 2004 Pistsons) were being touted as an example for gaining playoff experience and then winning. Well, they can't both be true.

Is there a game limit a team needs to win? Is there a certain number of players who need a certain amount of experience? What if the team breaks up before they win after gaining some "playoff experience?" Does the counter go back to zero for that team?

You guys are saying it matters....show some type of proof of how it matters at all. And again, in the NBA, you'd be pretty hard pressed to find many teams with little to no playoff experience (which is why the entire argument is a self fulfilling prophecy) since half of the league makes the playoffs and rosters spots are played like musical chairs.
Click to expand...

Lar, "proof" is just as slippery for you as it is for us. You're not defending atheism here. You have examples, most of them in recent history, we have examples.

I know you have a big ego, so your answer might be, "few and so what", but take CTG out of the equation, how many players, coaches, NBA execs, past or present, agree with your position? They're actually in the game. I can't think of anyone ever saying that.
 
tipyerbartender said:
Lar, "proof" is just as slippery for you as it is for us. You're not defending atheism here. You have examples, most of them in recent history, we have examples.

I know you have a big ego, so your answer might be, "few and so what", but take CTG out of the equation, how many players, coaches, NBA execs, past or present, agree with your position? They're actually in the game. I can't think of anyone ever saying that.
Click to expand...

They all speak in cliches all the time Tip, of course they don't say that. I'd imagine there are some that realize it doesn't mean much.

I'm still waiting for an example of a team that did it by losing to then win in the past 2 or so decades. I'm not sure that the 2004 Pistons count anymore as they had the 2nd fewest games of playoff experience by a winner ever. Do you disagree with that?

I also understand "proof" may be slippery, but again, the person making the claim has to do the proving...that's the only point. I'm sorry it's slippery and tough to find proof...maybe it's because that "thing" doesn't exist?
 
Pretty easy yes or no question (I think it's pretty easy, but it probably won't end up there)....in the NBA, does talent win out at a ridiculously higher rate than not? If the answer is yes (which it seems pretty clear it is), then THAT is what helps a team win....more talent, better players.
 
Lareux said:
They all speak in cliches all the time Tip, of course they don't say that. I'd imagine there are some that realize it doesn't mean much.

I'm still waiting for an example of a team that did it by losing to then win in the past 2 or so decades. I'm not sure that the 2004 Pistons count anymore as they had the 2nd fewest games of playoff experience by a winner ever. Do you disagree with that?

I also understand "proof" may be slippery, but again, the person making the claim has to do the proving...that's the only point. I'm sorry it's slippery and tough to find proof...maybe it's because that "thing" doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

Arghh. You're positioning yourself as "prove the moon isn't made of cheese" in 1930. We were pretty sure, but who could be certain?

Players and coaches yesterday, I mean way yesterday, and today, and tomorrow, I think they'd sing in unison about the glory and virtue of playoff experience, do-or-die experienxe. I think even Bill Belichick values it. I just can't seem to quantify it.
 
tipyerbartender said:
Arghh. You're positioning yourself as "prove the moon isn't made of cheese" in 1930. We were pretty sure, but who could be certain?

Players and coaches yesterday, I mean way yesterday, and today, and tomorrow, I think they'd sing in unison about the glory and virtue of playoff experience, do-or-die experienxe. I think even Bill Belichick values it. I just can't seem to quantify it.
Click to expand...

What? No Tip, you literally have it backwards. Seriously. In this example, I'm the one being asked to prove the moon isn't made of cheese. It's trying to prove a negative (again, which I've mentioned a few times but I know you don't read much of others' posts) (again with the example as you've just proven it to be true again). This is too funny that you don't realize you're on the "prove the moon isn't made of cheese" side. Good grief.

I know players do, I've agreed with you that they do (again, are you reading the posts?). Just because they all talk in cliches 99% of the time doesn't mean what they're saying has actual value. And again I will ask...why is this one particular cliche that they continually use held above the rest of the BS they spew that everyone knows and agrees are cliches?
 
Talent wins, playoff experience helps. It's not either/or, 0 %, irrelevant, I think that's all anyone is suggesting. Playoff experience is a good thing, a plus, a bonus, the games are different, it matters. It's not the key. It matters.
 
tipyerbartender said:
Talent wins, playoff experience helps. It's not either/or, 0 %, irrelevant, I think that's all anyone is suggesting. Playoff experience is a good thing, a plus, a bonus, the games are different, it matters. It's not the key. It matters.
Click to expand...

Okay, it matters. Back to the original question...does it matter enough to make one playoff series and get swept or have that chance at a #1 overall pick. THAT is how this whole fucking thing got started. And we're no closer to the answer, even if I concede the point you just made.
 
And you keep ignoring that you're asking the other side of the argument to "prove a negative".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Frank Costanza
Week 10 - TV Schedule & Broadcaster Listing
Replies
4
Views
93
HairOfTheDog
H
Frank Costanza
Week 9 - TV Schedule & Broadcaster Listing
Replies
3
Views
137
Wolfeman
Wolfeman
Frank Costanza
Week 8 - TV Schedule & Broadcaster Listing
Replies
6
Views
116
CPA-hole
CPA-hole
Frank Costanza
Week 7 - TV Schedule & Broadcaster Listing
Replies
8
Views
135
HairOfTheDog
H
Frank Costanza
Week 6 - TV Schedule & Broadcaster Listing
Replies
4
Views
108
HairOfTheDog
H
Back
Top