The 'Stons Journey Back to the Postseason...

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...

What playoff experience helps? Meaning, is there more or less valuable playoff experience, or is it all equally important? If you get swept in the first round, do you feel as good about your chances next year as you would have if you got to Game 6? If you made the 2nd round because the other team lost 2 players to injury and then you were swept in the 2nd round?
 
I think it matters in the Pistons' case. 2% is pretty bad. Make the playoffs.
 
tipyerbartender said:
And you keep ignoring that you're asking the other side of the argument to "prove a negative".
Click to expand...


No, I'm not. What the fuck are you talking about? The claim is that playoff experience matters...I've asked for it to be proven. That's not a negative Tip. When someone says "prove it doesn't matter"....THAT is asking for a negative to be proven (there is a "negative" word in the question, you do realize that right?).

I mean, you seriously have it 100% backwards, and even after it was pointed out to you, you're still trying to say I'm the one asking for someone to prove a negative? I give up Tip.
 
I mean, this is why they did it this way. Do they need to make it that the just-missed teams have no chance? I don't want to sound like dad in a car, but do I need to come back there because you're screwing around about 2%?
 
Lar, the prove-a-negative stuff doesn't fly when both sides have dozens of examples to the contrary. Your "playoff experience doesn't matter position" is not provable. It's supportable, you're trying hard, it's not provable. It's difficult to prove things matter.
 
Most are weighing in on whether this particular edition of the Pistons would benefit from the playoffs. Lar's splitting the atom. Then beating up both halves of the atom in the interrogation room.
 
tipyerbartender said:
Lar, the prove-a-negative stuff doesn't fly when both sides have dozens of examples to the contrary. Your "playoff experience doesn't matter position" is not provable. It's supportable, you're trying hard, it's not provable. It's difficult to prove things matter.
Click to expand...

Tip, it matters for one reason, and one reason only. If someone is being asked to prove something DOESN'T exist, that is proving a negative. I'm not asking anyone to prove something doesn't exist, quite the opposite in fact, I'm asking for proof it DOES exist.

I seriously can't tell if you're just being facetious at this point because your point is so ridiculous.

Before you move the goalposts, let's just realize that you said I was asking others to prove a negative, which I am not. It is actually 100% the opposite. Agreed?
 
tipyerbartender said:
Most are weighing in on whether this particular edition of the Pistons would benefit from the playoffs. Lar's splitting the atom. Then beating up both halves of the atom in the interrogation room.
Click to expand...

I'm splitting the atom and you're drooling into your drool cup, wearing your protective helmet, on the short bus (the one with bars on the windows) home from the bar you just got inebriated in.
 
tipyerbartender said:
Most are weighing in on whether this particular edition of the Pistons would benefit from the playoffs. Lar's splitting the atom. Then beating up both halves of the atom in the interrogation room.
Click to expand...

I've also said that maybe the Pistons are the exception, and it will help them in the long run to get swept in the first round (not that they have to get swept). They could just sign a few more talented guys and be better than they will by losing in the first round this year. That's the more efficient way to do it these days, as evidenced by the past 15-20 years of NBA champions.
 
I believe Canada doesn't matter. I only ask you to prove it matters.
 
tipyerbartender said:
I believe Canada doesn't matter. I only ask you to prove it matters.
Click to expand...

If my contention was that Canada matters, I would be prepared to prove it.

Are you seriously still missing 'it?' Can't be at this point, there's just no way.
 
Also, would one of you mopes please join the CTG-1 bases league? It's a good league.
 
I confess, I have not had dinner yet, just beer. Thinking about dinner.
 
When I try to quote on an I-phone on CTG, 10 pages of quotes show up, so I shy away. Deep thoughts by jack handy.
 
And just as an aside, the Atlanta Hawks are set to make their 9th straight postseason appearance...
 
Why do I have a feeling lar's going to blast this thread about maple syrup and moose jerkey? And hopefully not the fucking Bluejays.
 
hugh613 said:
And just as an aside, the Atlanta Hawks are set to make their 9th straight postseason appearance...
Click to expand...

They probably gonna win it this year with all that experience.

Tip, didn't you try to use the Hawks as an example that proved me wrong somehow? Wanna revisit that and admit you had no idea what you were saying?
 
tipyerbartender said:
Why do I have a feeling lar's going to blast this thread about maple syrup and moose jerkey? And hopefully not the fucking Bluejays.
Click to expand...

Your feeling is wrong (I sense a theme). I never said Canada mattered for me to support the claim.
 
no godammit.

You said prove playoff experience matters. (Kind of a ridiculous request, by any adult's measure.)

I'm asking you to prove Canada matters.

Can't you offer a single mattering thing?
 
tipyerbartender said:
no godammit.

You said prove playoff experience matters. (Kind of a ridiculous request, by any adult's measure.)

I'm asking you to prove Canada matters.

Can't you offer a single mattering thing?
Click to expand...

JFC. The contention made was that it does matter. I made no such contention about Canada...no I won't. I never said it did to begin with. You're talking in circles now and it's getting embarrassing.
 
You can't beat me in the dynasty one. But the one year will give you a shot.
 
And knowing how avid a soccer fan tip is, it's worth mentioning we're about a month and a half away from one of the most improbable championship runs in all of sport - a team that finished near the bottom of the league last season, a team whose financial resources are dwarfed by half the league they play in, and a team without any marquee players.

Sometimes it's not "experience" and all about the moving parts catching lightning in a bottle... (ok, cliches and metaphors are not my strong suit).
 
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...

Bold #1- No, I said a young team that is up and coming should want to get in. I said a team that is middle of the road always making it as a 5-8 or 6-8 seed should want to get in lottery.

Bold #2- Still waiting on the source for all of that.



And again, you have side-stepped what I asked. Once you respond to that, I'll respond to you again.
 
hugh613 said:
And just as an aside, the Atlanta Hawks are set to make their 9th straight postseason appearance...
Click to expand...

And what has that done for them? They are a perfect example, I might have brought up before. Last years ridic regular season aside.
 
B.A.R. said:
Bold #1- No, I said a young team that is up and coming should want to get in. I said a team that is middle of the road always making it as a 5-8 or 6-8 seed should want to get in lottery.

Bold #2- Still waiting on the source for all of that.



And again, you have side-stepped what I asked. Once you respond to that, I'll respond to you again.
Click to expand...

Didn't I link the source? I linked a few others about experience as a whole and how it relates to the NBA.

The totals were as follows, if that's what you're after:

04 Pistons - 165 games
08 Celtics - 161 games

The Spurs total wasn't listed for some reason, but it mentioned that neither Ginobli nor Stephen Jackson had ANY playoff experience whatsoever when they won that title in 2003.
 
dynasty leagues are full of whiners. Lar would fit right in.

Sorry, rare cheapo, drinking.
 
B.A.R. said:
And what has that done for them? They are a perfect example, I might have brought up before. Last years ridic regular season aside.
Click to expand...

Right. They are a perfect example as to why making the playoffs, and gaining "playoff experience" isn't worth jack shit...right?

So you really do agree that making the playoffs and not doing anything is not what a team should want and should want a chance at the top pick? Unless it's a really young team that can grow together for a few years, like the Pistons?
 
B.A.R. said:
And what has that done for them? They are a perfect example, I might have brought up before. Last years ridic regular season aside.
Click to expand...
You're the one arguing how important "playoff experience" would be for the Pistons, not me.
 
hugh613 said:
You're the one arguing how important "playoff experience" would be for the Pistons, not me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was a confusing response, but I'm pretty sure he thinks the Pistons are different because they're young and can grow together. The Hawks were probably just as young at some point, and here they are.
 
Lareux said:
Didn't I link the source? I linked a few others about experience as a whole and how it relates to the NBA.

The totals were as follows, if that's what you're after:

04 Pistons - 165 games
08 Celtics - 161 games

The Spurs total wasn't listed for some reason, but it mentioned that neither Ginobli nor Stephen Jackson had ANY playoff experience whatsoever when they won that title in 2003.
Click to expand...


One more post then out.

First, 2004 Detroit was in their 3rd straight postseason. Parts had moved but they had playoff experience. Maybe not in quantity of games, but they had made steps each year. 2nd round...conference finals...then finals...



Now onto the 2003 Spurs...aside from Manu and TP...Imma list some players...


David Robinson (1x champ)
Robert Horry(2x champ)
Malik Rose(1x champ)
Tim Duncan(1x champ)
Ron Mercer(few playoffs)
Charlie Ward(1999 nba finals appearace)
Kevin Willis (19th year in league)






Drops mic...



See ya manana
 
Lareux said:
Yeah, that was a confusing response, but I'm pretty sure he thinks the Pistons are different because they're young and can grow together. The Hawks were probably just as young at some point, and here they are.
Click to expand...

You got one right, finally.

The Hawks for last several years shoulda just tanked and rebuilt.
 
Lar, we've spent pages fucking around. Teed said it in one post, it's been true forever. If you have some guys on the way up and they're there next year, yes, getting beat in the playoffs helps. Presumably more than the 2%. If I have fat vets smoking cigs and winning 40, give me the 2%. It's a fucking debate about fucking nothing. You must really value 2% in the borderline decisions.
 
hugh613 said:
You're the one arguing how important "playoff experience" would be for the Pistons, not me.
Click to expand...

That is for an up and coming team. The Hawks were that once, but never got over hump or close to it. Detroit may not either. In 3-5 years I may be asking them to tank to get to lottery instead of a low playoff seed.
 
tipyerbartender said:
Lar, we've spent pages fucking around. Teed said it in one post, it's been true forever. If you have some guys on the way up and they're there next year, yes, getting beat in the playoffs helps. Presumably more than the 2%. If I have fat vets smoking cigs and winning 40, give me the 2%. It's a fucking debate about fucking nothing. You must really value 2% in the borderline decisions.
Click to expand...

No, again, I said maybe the Pistons are the exception. Maybe it is just up and coming teams that would benefit. The entire talk went back to the debate from the other thread though, and that was a completely different issue. Even BAR agrees with that sentiment.

And no one has proven why getting beat in the first round helps. It certainly doesn't help the next year if they need to get in again to get more experience. So they need multiple years in the playoffs to gain enough experience to finally win? At that point, they're no longer that young and up and coming and evidently that's when they should start to talk and try and win the lottery. Do you realize the insanity of this at all? We are saying that it helps a team to lose games simply because they're played in May and against one team as opposed to a few teams. And that experience is more valuable than just simply experience itself being in the league, maturing and growing as a player and as a team. Mmmmmkay.
 
B.A.R. said:
One more post then out.

First, 2004 Detroit was in their 3rd straight postseason. Parts had moved but they had playoff experience. Maybe not in quantity of games, but they had made steps each year. 2nd round...conference finals...then finals...



Now onto the 2003 Spurs...aside from Manu and TP...Imma list some players...


David Robinson (1x champ)
Robert Horry(2x champ)
Malik Rose(1x champ)
Tim Duncan(1x champ)
Ron Mercer(few playoffs)
Charlie Ward(1999 nba finals appearace)
Kevin Willis (19th year in league)






Drops mic...



See ya manana
Click to expand...

Drops mic? Hahaha.

Good grief.

And people wanna know what's wrong with this site. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
 
The best part of this thread is Pistons fans now saying they had no "star" players on their team in 2004. When it was actually 2004 and you talked to Pistons fans, you'd have thought they were trotting out McHale, Bird, and Parrish. Ben Wallace was an MVP candidate for fuck's sake, wasn't he?

Or that BAR is good with (and would encourage) teams not making the playoffs 99.5% of the time. The only time they should try is when they're a young and up coming team (which is arbitrary to begin with). My stance is that they should opt to not make it 100% of the time, because playoff experience is overrated. And somehow I'm the ass hole who just wants to argue and BAR dropped the mic because he felt he was so right. So in 99.5% of the cases it is overrated, but if you find that one team per decade that's young and has potential, it's no longer overrated and they should fight to get slaughtered. Yep, makes perfect sense.
 
What do y'all think the up and coming 76ers should do next year if they're in the 10 spot with a month to play and 2.5 games out of a playoff spot? (hahahahaha, like that's happening, but it's still fun to talk about)
 
We should also be reminded that the Warriors, last season, were said to not have enough playoff experience to win it all by many, many, many people.

I don't know, they had the best backcourt in basketball (some would argue of all time) and the walking triple double Draymond Green just kept getting better and better. They also had a rookie coach. Does the playoff experience of a head coach matter as well?
 
The Warriors took their lumps, even (gasp) playoff lumps. Steph has been in the league a bunch of years. He has one title. You've left all of this out of your tale.
 
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