<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Oct 9 2006, 02:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>falconman- Kobe has not been blasted as much as T-Mac has for being up 3-1, then losing to the much better team. Why? Kobe has been past that with a superstar by his side. T-Mac has never had that luxory, in series vs Pistons he had no reliable 2nd option capable of scoring 15PPG or more. Kobe even had that with Lamar, T-Mac had no one. With Rockets, he played his ass off against the Mavs, hit GW's and raised his stats a ton while doing a number on Dirk, but his teammates just weren't there, his 3rd option didn't even play, and the other team was far better top to bottom.</div>What do you mean Kobe hasn't been blasted as much? How many people were demanding to know why Kobe only attempted 3 shots after halftime? I remember Charles Barkley crying for an answer. Kobe got RIPPED by both fans and critics alike after that.T-Mac? The major reason he gets ripped is when his team was up 3-1 he said he was glad he was finally getting out of the first round of the playoffs! What a dumb comment!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ Oct 11 2006, 05:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Nitro, you said yourself that this is one of those debates where you really have to watch them and really know what you are talking about to make a decision. I'm not saying you don't know what you are talking about, but PLEASE stop going and pulling out every little per game stat you can find on their playerfiles.Pierce's turnovers - 0.6 more than T-Mac - oooooooohhhhh. You sound like my friend, who declared Melo had a better rookie year than LeBron because of 0.1 ppg difference. Also note the team he's been on with an endless amount of players who are under age 23 and cause a lot of those turnovers.But please, I hate reading a post that says something like: "So and so got 0.6 steals, 54% shooting. 24.5 ppg, 7.6 rpg, 4.3 apg and a great assist to turnover ratio" etc. Stop with that crap.</div>You, along with others, tried to use stats against me, I am just doing the same. Those stats HELP show that T-Mac is a better and more efficient playmaker, but as you know, when you see both play it is glaringly apparent.Ok, here is where you got it way wrong. These 2 players are at about 3 TO's per game. They score, generally, between 22-30PPG. Now, would .6PPG be as big of a factor as .6 TO's per game? NO! .6 TO's is 20% of 3 TO's, whereas .6PPG is less than 1% of 25PPG. See the difference? To keep it in perspective....a 20% increase from 25PPG is 30PPG...a pretty big difference. That .6TO's per game more that Pierce averages is a 20% increase from where T-Mac is. In other words....it does make a difference. T-Mac has never had a season over 2.7 TO's, whereas Pierce has exceeded that mark in his past 6 seasons.....to keep it short, T-Mac is more efficient as a playmaker.I already explained why I felt T-Mac was a better ____, and people argued against it. Now I am bringing out the facts to support my arguement. I am sorry you don't like it, but I feel the stats prove a whole bunch, and definately help support an arguement.dogma- He had his best season this season in terms of PPG, not much better than 01-02, and still was 5 PPG lower than T-Mac's best season in scoring. Both had similar teams in the sense that both were relied on to do bulk of scoring, Pierce possibly moreso due to young team. Difference? T-Mac had more PPG, more APG, more SPG, and 1 less TO per game, and got to playoffs with a winning record. Pierce has been around/over 3 TO's all throughout his career, it wasn't because of a new offense that he was high in the TO area.falconman- T-Mac's whole career has been sh*t on because he has never been past 1st round, even though his stats always increase big time in playoffs. Kobe, despite being tried for rape, despite having his worst season ever in his 1st season without Shaq and not getting to playoffs, despite blowing a 3-1 lead this year in playoffs....he is still considered to be, by far, the best player in the game. Why? Because, despite him being the 2nd option, he has 3 'chips. T-Mac has never gotten that kind of oppertunity outside of 1 year, and that year his 3rd option was hurt, his 2nd option was horribly inconsistent in playoffs, his role players underperformed, and the team they played had homecourt advantage, was much better top to bottom, and were on a 16-2 streak going into playoffs. Despite all of that, he still mananged to push series to 7 games, averaged 31/7/7, hitting a GW, and overall just playing amazing.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Oct 11 2006, 07:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You, along with others, tried to use stats against me, I am just doing the same. Those stats HELP show that T-Mac is a better and more efficient playmaker, but as you know, when you see both play it is glaringly apparent.</div> You have been using stats the entire time. I used a couple to counter them, and I even said I never use stats. You were wrong with a couple statements stat-wise, and I double-checked. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Ok, here is where you got it way wrong. These 2 players are at about 3 TO's per game. They score, generally, between 22-30PPG. Now, would .6PPG be as big of a factor as .6 TO's per game? NO! .6 TO's is 20% of 3 TO's, whereas .6PPG is less than 1% of 25PPG. See the difference? To keep it in perspective....a 20% increase from 25PPG is 30PPG...a pretty big difference. That .6TO's per game more that Pierce averages is a 20% increase from where T-Mac is. In other words....it does make a difference. T-Mac has never had a season over 2.7 TO's, whereas Pierce has exceeded that mark in his past 6 seasons.....to keep it short, T-Mac is more efficient as a playmaker.</div> I never said, or thought, that 0.6 ppg and 0.6 spg is the same. Correct. But beating someone by 0.3-0.6 turnovers per game, or whatever, does NOT determine the playmaking ability of a player. Not at all, especially when it's not a HUGE margin. And ok, T-Mac gets a 0.whatever better TOPG average, who cares. It's not like Pierce is a turnover king by any means. Some of those turnovers happen due to young players' mistakes, also: not catching a good pass, 2 seconds on the shot clock then they decide to cross-court pass to Pierce who gets a turnover because of it, etc. He doesn't just run up the court, play 1-on-1, try to cross someone up, then get it picked. Stats are VERY misleading, which is why I absolutely hate when people use them excessively, especially in debates. I already explained why I felt T-Mac was a better ____, and people argued against it. Now I am bringing out the facts to support my arguement. I am sorry you don't like it, but I feel the stats prove a whole bunch, and definately help support an arguement. dogma- <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>He had his best season this season in terms of PPG, not much better than 01-02, and still was 5 PPG lower than T-Mac's best season in scoring. Both had similar teams in the sense that both were relied on to do bulk of scoring, Pierce possibly moreso due to young team. Difference? T-Mac had more PPG, more APG, more SPG, and 1 less TO per game, and got to playoffs with a winning record. Pierce has been around/over 3 TO's all throughout his career, it wasn't because of a new offense that he was high in the TO area.</div> See what I mean with you and the stats? "More PPG, more APG, more SPG," etc. The points, ok T-Mac has put up more numbers, but it's not like he's really THAT much better of a scorer. Assists, T-Mac is the better playmaker, I never argued that - dogma did. Steals, whatever. Allen Iverson is always near the top of the league in steals, is he a better man-to-man defender than Marcus Banks? No. Paul Pierce is a better overall defender than T-Mac, not by a great margin, but he is a bit better. "T-Mac got into the playoffs with a winning record" - ok? And Pierce didn't? Ooooh, I get it, you are just referring to ONE season that was a rebuilding season. Oh, that one year. Let's compare wins and playoff position in 2002.
Guys, take it from me. If you have guys like nbadogmatist and celticballer arguing against Nitro, it's simply not happening. Arguing whos the better player between two very close Rockets and Celtics is futile. Essentially, you are rasing post count with no real benefit. My take on the matter?The question said: Who would you start a franchise with?Judging from TMac's consistent injuries and Pierce's fiercley better efficiency (the dreaded term) I think even a Rocket's fan would take Pierce
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ Oct 12 2006, 11:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I never said, or thought, that 0.6 ppg and 0.6 spg is the same. Correct. But beating someone by 0.3-0.6 turnovers per game, or whatever, does NOT determine the playmaking ability of a player. Not at all, especially when it's not a HUGE margin. And ok, T-Mac gets a 0.whatever better TOPG average, who cares. It's not like Pierce is a turnover king by any means. Some of those turnovers happen due to young players' mistakes, also: not catching a good pass, 2 seconds on the shot clock then they decide to cross-court pass to Pierce who gets a turnover because of it, etc. He doesn't just run up the court, play 1-on-1, try to cross someone up, then get it picked. Stats are VERY misleading, which is why I absolutely hate when people use them excessively, especially in debates.</div>He has been over 3 TO's more than once, a few times with the Celtics teams that did something in the East. T-Mac is a better, and more efficient playmaker. End it there. We both agree on this, and stats help show this.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>See what I mean with you and the stats? "More PPG, more APG, more SPG," etc. The points, ok T-Mac has put up more numbers, but it's not like he's really THAT much better of a scorer. Assists, T-Mac is the better playmaker, I never argued that - dogma did. Steals, whatever. Allen Iverson is always near the top of the league in steals, is he a better man-to-man defender than Marcus Banks? No. Paul Pierce is a better overall defender than T-Mac, not by a great margin, but he is a bit better."T-Mac got into the playoffs with a winning record" - ok? And Pierce didn't? Ooooh, I get it, you are just referring to ONE season that was a rebuilding season. Oh, that one year. Let's compare wins and playoff position in 2002.</div>He's CLEARLY a better scorer, IMO.T-Mac is a better playmaker, yep.SPG was just another stat to show how much he did for Orlando. I have acknowledged in this thread that the only area where Pierce is a clear cut better player in is on the defensive end of the ball.3 seasons, really. One year they were way under .500, another year they were exactly .500 untilm Walker came (ended season 8 games over .500) and then this past season, no playoffs and under .500. What has he shown as a player who can do just about anything he wants on a young team? He has played very well this past season, but didn't the other 2 seasons....and as good as he was this past season, T-Mac has had 4 (arguably 5) better seasons statistically. Yeah, let's compare, shall we:T-Mac/Mike Miller/Pat Garrity/Darrell Armstrong/Troy Hudson/Horace Grant/Monty WilliamsVs.Pierce/Walker/Rodney Rodgers/Kenny Anderson/Tony Delk/Erick Strickland/Tony Battie/Walter McCartyYeah, really fair, especially considering everyone outside of Arsmstrong was way down in stats in playoffs for Mac, who averaged 31/6/6 on 46% shooting to Pierce who had 25/9/4 on 40% shooting. If Pierce didn't have Walker he would have been in a similar situation as Mac. With Walker, he had a viable 2nd option who produced 22/9 in playoffs to Mac's 2nd option, Mike Miller, who averaged 5/1/1 on 33% shooting in playoffs. Really fu*king fair.I am done with this conversation, no reason to debate further. I feel I have made my point, which is T-Mac is better scorer, playmaker, and everything else outside of defender can be argued. Pierce has proven little to me in playoffs. He had a very, very solid team built around him from 2002-2003, the 2 years he got out of 1st round, and did it in a weak EC. Mac had little to no help, especially in playoffs. While Pierce's stats always stay level or lower than where he was in season, T-Mac stats go WAY up. Pierce should have never made playoffs in his 1st year without Walker, and 2nd year without Walker didn't make playoffs....outside of 2003-2004, Mac carried his team (all 3 seasons he played better than Pierce's best season) to the playoffs each year. For that matter, T-Mac also has to prove he can get out of 2nd round, but as for the individuals, Mac has been just as/more impressive to ME in playoffs.Again, I'm done, it's been fun debating this for 6 pages, but I'm sick of this discussion. This season will prove a lot about each player.
How about this, T-Mac is barely better than Stephon Marbury in my opinion.Know why? Cause neither has proven to be a winner or good at elevating his team.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KMartAce @ Oct 13 2006, 12:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Essentially, you are rasing post count with no real benefit.</div> 1. Who cares about post count? Who pays attention to it? 2. It's not like we are spamming. These are all legit posts with long, well thought out statements and arguments. I don't see the problem with this at all. And as for Nitro, yeah I'm very tired of this topic as well. There is really nothing more we can say about this, and either way it's getting old. We both made our points, we both have our own opinions, and we both had a very good debate nevertheless. That was fun bro.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ Oct 14 2006, 01:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>1. Who cares about post count? Who pays attention to it?2. It's not like we are spamming. These are all legit posts with long, well thought out statements and arguments. I don't see the problem with this at all.</div>1. That's my point brother.2. I never said you were spamming, I simply said that debating a Houston Rockets fan against TMac is futile. Debating an LA Laker fan against Kobe Bryant is futile. Debating a San Antonio Spurs fan against Tim Duncan is futile. All I'm saying is that you could bring up the best points in the world, make whoever you are debating against look like an idiot, and you still wouldn't change his mind the least bit. That's the reality of bias in basketball: you aren't going to change itDon't get me wrong, I'm not saying you shuoldn't debate. Heck, a year ago I was coming out with 4 debates a day. All I'm saying is that from experience, I've learned that all debates against bias do is raise post count, and nothing more. No comment to be taken seriously my friend :boogie:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KMartAce @ Oct 14 2006, 10:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>1. That's my point brother. 2. I never said you were spamming, I simply said that debating a Houston Rockets fan against TMac is futile. Debating an LA Laker fan against Kobe Bryant is futile. Debating a San Antonio Spurs fan against Tim Duncan is futile. All I'm saying is that you could bring up the best points in the world, make whoever you are debating against look like an idiot, and you still wouldn't change his mind the least bit. That's the reality of bias in basketball: you aren't going to change it Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you shuoldn't debate. Heck, a year ago I was coming out with 4 debates a day. All I'm saying is that from experience, I've learned that all debates against bias do is raise post count, and nothing more. No comment to be taken seriously my friend :boogie:</div> I understand, and you are right that you might not change their mind, but you made a comment saying that we were "upping the post count without benefit" or something. That makes no sense, it was a good little debate, and we both got a lot of good points off. I really enjoy debating about basketball and letting off my 2 cents about a topic, and if I get into another 6 page debate then so be it.
I didn't say all you wanted to do was raise post count, no way. If you wanted to raise post count you could go into the off-topic section. I just said that at the end of the debate, thats all you've accomplished
Kmart, I actually this this is a good debate. A Celtics fan vs. a Houston fan on this topic may not get anywhere because they are going to be really stubborn but both know the players more than anyone and it makes for a good debate so let them continue.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KMartAce @ Oct 14 2006, 09:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>2. I never said you were spamming, I simply said that debating a Houston Rockets fan against TMac is futile. Debating an LA Laker fan against Kobe Bryant is futile. Debating a San Antonio Spurs fan against Tim Duncan is futile. All I'm saying is that you could bring up the best points in the world, make whoever you are debating against look like an idiot, and you still wouldn't change his mind the least bit. That's the reality of bias in basketball: you aren't going to change itDon't get me wrong, I'm not saying you shuoldn't debate. Heck, a year ago I was coming out with 4 debates a day. All I'm saying is that from experience, I've learned that all debates against bias do is raise post count, and nothing more. No comment to be taken seriously my friend :boogie:</div><span style="font-family:Book Antiqua">I figured that out a while ago, too. However, I used to debate with my friends, face-to-face at school and so on. Not on the 'net...</span>
