<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 13 2008, 09:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 13 2008, 09:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Enough with the flourishes. I doubt you could break down his article.</div> So you want me to waste my ****ing time reading his tripe to prove something to you? I have too much self respect to read the bald buffoon, Chad Ford and Charlie Rosen. </div> How the **** do you even know what you're disagreeing with then? If you don't want to waste your "****ing" time, then don't say shit about JH on this subject then. I assumed you at least had an informed opinion on this particular matter. I wasn't defending JH's career, just this specific point.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 13 2008, 09:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How do I know you've even read his recent article? Go find it and retort it yourself.</div> That is the equivalent of saying go read Mein Kampf and refute it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 13 2008, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 13 2008, 09:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How do I know you've even read his recent article? Go find it and retort it yourself.</div> That is the equivalent of saying go read Mein Kampf and refute it. </div> So anyone you don't like is always wrong then? Really? Stop trying to cover for your ass, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. You just assumed it was Hollinger bringing up some wack formula again or whatever, but that wasn't the case.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 13 2008, 09:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 13 2008, 09:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 13 2008, 09:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Enough with the flourishes. I doubt you could break down his article.</div> So you want me to waste my ****ing time reading his tripe to prove something to you? I have too much self respect to read the bald buffoon, Chad Ford and Charlie Rosen. </div> How the **** do you even know what you're disagreeing with then? If you don't want to waste your "****ing" time, then don't say shit about JH on this subject then. I assumed you at least had an informed opinion on this particular matter. I wasn't defending JH's career, just this particular point. </div> Lets see, I had someone tell me earlier today that Hollinger essentially wrote it was a bad trade for the Mavs and it was very easy to infer from your posts that he wrote in opposition to the trade. Add to this that I know Hollinger bases everything upon PER and projected PER, I don't need to read the article to know that it is tripe. Hollinger is an extremely poor basketball analyst when it comes to predicting things. He is decent at analyzing what has happened as the actual stats are there for him. When he projects things, he is worse than your average poster because his fundamental understanding of the game is poor.
Dallas Fans: "WE GOT KIDD!!!!! WHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!" Dirk: "Yeah. Time to get laid." Avery: "The General tips his hat" Mark Cuban: "Dallas will love me! We got Kidd!" "YEEEEEEE HAAAAWWWW!!!!! Gump: "What?? New Jersey?? That's too long of a plane ride. I decline. lolz" Dallas Fans: wtf
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Lets see, I had someone tell me earlier today that Hollinger essentially wrote it was a bad trade for the Mavs and it was very easy to infer from your posts that he wrote in opposition to the trade. Add to this that I know Hollinger bases everything upon PER and projected PER, I don't need to read the article to know that it is tripe. Hollinger is an extremely poor basketball analyst when it comes to predicting things. He is decent at analyzing what has happened as the actual stats are there for him. When he projects things, he is worse than your average poster because his fundamental understanding of the game is poor.</div> But if you don't read his article, then if he actually made an analysis without using PER, you would have no clue, would you? Your buddy's summary of the article could be inadequate as well. Which it was.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 13 2008, 09:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 13 2008, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 13 2008, 09:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How do I know you've even read his recent article? Go find it and retort it yourself.</div> That is the equivalent of saying go read Mein Kampf and refute it. </div> So anyone you don't like is always wrong then? Really? Stop trying to cover for your ass, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. You just assumed it was Hollinger bringing up some wack formula again or whatever, but that wasn't the case. </div> No, however, I don't like "analysts" that have proven to be useless. Now you are making ridiculous assumptions. I'm not doubting any math what so ever.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 13 2008, 09:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 13 2008, 09:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 13 2008, 09:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 13 2008, 09:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Enough with the flourishes. I doubt you could break down his article.</div> So you want me to waste my ****ing time reading his tripe to prove something to you? I have too much self respect to read the bald buffoon, Chad Ford and Charlie Rosen. </div> How the **** do you even know what you're disagreeing with then? If you don't want to waste your "****ing" time, then don't say shit about JH on this subject then. I assumed you at least had an informed opinion on this particular matter. I wasn't defending JH's career, just this particular point. </div> Lets see, I had someone tell me earlier today that Hollinger essentially wrote it was a bad trade for the Mavs and it was very easy to infer from your posts that he wrote in opposition to the trade. Add to this that I know Hollinger bases everything upon PER and projected PER, I don't need to read the article to know that it is tripe. Hollinger is an extremely poor basketball analyst when it comes to predicting things. He is decent at analyzing what has happened as the actual stats are there for him. When he projects things, he is worse than your average poster because his fundamental understanding of the game is poor. </div> You know who's great at predicting things...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>In the final analysis, then, it seems Dallas gave up quite a bit to make what is, even with the most rose-colored glasses, a marginal upgrade at the point. It's possible it could work, but my issue with this deal is that the risk and reward seem out of line. Much like Phoenix with the Shaq deal, I can't help but wonder if the Mavs are fixated on what Kidd was 18 months ago rather than what he'll be over the next 18 months.</div> I'd say Hollinger is spot on with his final conclusion. He hedges that it's possible it could work, but the upgrade at PG appears marginal and the risk associated in the deal outweighs the reward.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 13 2008, 09:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 13 2008, 09:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 13 2008, 09:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 13 2008, 09:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Enough with the flourishes. I doubt you could break down his article.</div> So you want me to waste my ****ing time reading his tripe to prove something to you? I have too much self respect to read the bald buffoon, Chad Ford and Charlie Rosen. </div> How the **** do you even know what you're disagreeing with then? If you don't want to waste your "****ing" time, then don't say shit about JH on this subject then. I assumed you at least had an informed opinion on this particular matter. I wasn't defending JH's career, just this particular point. </div> Lets see, I had someone tell me earlier today that Hollinger essentially wrote it was a bad trade for the Mavs and it was very easy to infer from your posts that he wrote in opposition to the trade. Add to this that I know Hollinger bases everything upon PER and projected PER, I don't need to read the article to know that it is tripe. Hollinger is an extremely poor basketball analyst when it comes to predicting things. He is decent at analyzing what has happened as the actual stats are there for him. When he projects things, he is worse than your average poster because his fundamental understanding of the game is poor. </div> Yup. I read the article (for whatever reason) and it was retarded - all he used was stats, every kind of stat possible. He didn't factor in Kidd's size, to counter Baron Davis, who owned Harris. He didn't factor in Kidd's experience, he's been to the finals twice. He didn't factor in the fact that Kidd can create a running game for Dallas - which Dallas doesn't have. He didn't include that Kidd is still good at pickpocketing. He failed to even mention that Kidd's actually been healthier than Harris as of late. He failed to mention the fact that Dallas doesn't exactly need scoring, they've got plenty of scorers on the team right now. He didn't really mention how Kidd will set up all of the inept big men with easy buckets - Dampier, Bass, etc. And he forgot about the factor that Kidd will, in fact, play much better than he has all of this season so far - because of motivation, and being traded to another team. Hollinger is a dummy.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 13 2008, 09:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Lets see, I had someone tell me earlier today that Hollinger essentially wrote it was a bad trade for the Mavs and it was very easy to infer from your posts that he wrote in opposition to the trade. Add to this that I know Hollinger bases everything upon PER and projected PER, I don't need to read the article to know that it is tripe. Hollinger is an extremely poor basketball analyst when it comes to predicting things. He is decent at analyzing what has happened as the actual stats are there for him. When he projects things, he is worse than your average poster because his fundamental understanding of the game is poor.</div> But if you don't read his article, then if he actually made an analysis without using PER, you would have no clue, would you? Your buddy's summary of the article could be inadequate as well. Which it was. </div> Why would I waste my time reading an article by Hollinger where he was making an analysis without using PER? I've already stated I have no respect for his basketball analysis.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shapecity @ Feb 13 2008, 09:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>In the final analysis, then, it seems Dallas gave up quite a bit to make what is, even with the most rose-colored glasses, a marginal upgrade at the point. It's possible it could work, but my issue with this deal is that the risk and reward seem out of line. Much like Phoenix with the Shaq deal, I can't help but wonder if the Mavs are fixated on what Kidd was 18 months ago rather than what he'll be over the next 18 months.</div> I'd say Hollinger is spot on with his final conclusion. He hedges that it's possible it could work, but the upgrade at PG appears marginal and the risk associated in the deal outweighs the reward. </div> I disagree completely. Kidd is a huge upgrade over Harris as he is someone that can actually get his teammates easy shots. Dallas has to play iso-fest offense because they have no guard that can create for anyone else. Additionally, Kidd will still be fine in 18 months. He has been dogging it this season and will rev it up when he gets to a place where he wants to be.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shapecity @ Feb 13 2008, 09:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>In the final analysis, then, it seems Dallas gave up quite a bit to make what is, even with the most rose-colored glasses, a marginal upgrade at the point. It's possible it could work, but my issue with this deal is that the risk and reward seem out of line. Much like Phoenix with the Shaq deal, I can't help but wonder if the Mavs are fixated on what Kidd was 18 months ago rather than what he'll be over the next 18 months.</div> I'd say Hollinger is spot on with his final conclusion. He hedges that it's possible it could work, but the upgrade at PG appears marginal and the risk associated in the deal outweighs the reward. </div> Since his PER formula has taken off he's taken a few shots at the Nets & Kidd. The formula favors shooters, which Kidd no one is going to argue is. But what he is great as is elevating & carrying his teammates. Look at what happened when he left a team, and what he has done for teams he moves to. While Howard, Dirk and Terry aren't the kind of guys that Kidd is accustomed playing with, but he hasn't played with a shooter of the caliber of any of them in his Nets days either covering his biggest short coming. -Petey
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumpman @ Feb 13 2008, 09:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I wouldn't want to go the Nets if I was him either.</div> kobe didnt want to be in LA earlier this year
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jizzy @ Feb 13 2008, 06:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumpman @ Feb 13 2008, 09:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I wouldn't want to go the Nets if I was him either.</div> kobe didnt want to be in LA earlier this year </div> And that matters to this topic in what way?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 13 2008, 09:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 13 2008, 09:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Lets see, I had someone tell me earlier today that Hollinger essentially wrote it was a bad trade for the Mavs and it was very easy to infer from your posts that he wrote in opposition to the trade. Add to this that I know Hollinger bases everything upon PER and projected PER, I don't need to read the article to know that it is tripe. Hollinger is an extremely poor basketball analyst when it comes to predicting things. He is decent at analyzing what has happened as the actual stats are there for him. When he projects things, he is worse than your average poster because his fundamental understanding of the game is poor.</div> But if you don't read his article, then if he actually made an analysis without using PER, you would have no clue, would you? Your buddy's summary of the article could be inadequate as well. Which it was. </div> Why would I waste my time reading an article by Hollinger where he was making an analysis without using PER? I've already stated I have no respect for his basketball analysis. </div> So you don't want to waste your time, great, but why then do you continue to generalize his articles? Since when is that an intelligent way to analyze? Why are you critiquing articles you haven't read? I don't critique books I haven't heard of. And if I did, I wouldn't make fanatical claims. Steve Nash was limited in the Dallas offense as well, and he was a far better shooter at that point then Kidd is now. Everything JH stated recently is legitimate.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bynumite @ Feb 13 2008, 09:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jizzy @ Feb 13 2008, 06:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumpman @ Feb 13 2008, 09:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I wouldn't want to go the Nets if I was him either.</div> kobe didnt want to be in LA earlier this year </div> And that matters to this topic in what way? </div> George obviously didn't wanna be in LA either haha
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 13 2008, 09:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shapecity @ Feb 13 2008, 09:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>In the final analysis, then, it seems Dallas gave up quite a bit to make what is, even with the most rose-colored glasses, a marginal upgrade at the point. It's possible it could work, but my issue with this deal is that the risk and reward seem out of line. Much like Phoenix with the Shaq deal, I can't help but wonder if the Mavs are fixated on what Kidd was 18 months ago rather than what he'll be over the next 18 months.</div> I'd say Hollinger is spot on with his final conclusion. He hedges that it's possible it could work, but the upgrade at PG appears marginal and the risk associated in the deal outweighs the reward. </div> I disagree completely. Kidd is a huge upgrade over Harris as he is someone that can actually get his teammates easy shots. Dallas has to play iso-fest offense because they have no guard that can create for anyone else. Additionally, Kidd will still be fine in 18 months. He has been dogging it this season and will rev it up when he gets to a place where he wants to be. </div> He's not suggesting Kidd isn't an upgrade, he's suggesting it's a marginal one and an area Dallas wasn't struggling at to begin with. Kidd's turnover ratio is 10.4 to 3.6 right now Harris turnover ratio is 5.3 to 2.4 right now Harris isn't the creator and playmaker Kidd is, but Kidd isn't the scorer Harris is.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 13 2008, 09:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 13 2008, 09:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 13 2008, 09:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Lets see, I had someone tell me earlier today that Hollinger essentially wrote it was a bad trade for the Mavs and it was very easy to infer from your posts that he wrote in opposition to the trade. Add to this that I know Hollinger bases everything upon PER and projected PER, I don't need to read the article to know that it is tripe. Hollinger is an extremely poor basketball analyst when it comes to predicting things. He is decent at analyzing what has happened as the actual stats are there for him. When he projects things, he is worse than your average poster because his fundamental understanding of the game is poor.</div> But if you don't read his article, then if he actually made an analysis without using PER, you would have no clue, would you? Your buddy's summary of the article could be inadequate as well. Which it was. </div> Why would I waste my time reading an article by Hollinger where he was making an analysis without using PER? I've already stated I have no respect for his basketball analysis. </div> So you don't want to waste your time, great, but why then do you continue to generalize his articles? Why are you critiquing articles you haven't read? I don't critique books I haven't heard of. Steve Nash was limited in the Dallas offense as well, and he was a far better shooter at that point then Kidd is now. Everything JH stated recently is legitimate. </div> Shape just posted the final conclusion from the article and it was horrible. Another poster posted in this thread about the article and his analysis. None of that conflicts my generalizations. As for Nash, please point out when he played for Avery Johnson
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shapecity @ Feb 13 2008, 10:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 13 2008, 09:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shapecity @ Feb 13 2008, 09:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>In the final analysis, then, it seems Dallas gave up quite a bit to make what is, even with the most rose-colored glasses, a marginal upgrade at the point. It's possible it could work, but my issue with this deal is that the risk and reward seem out of line. Much like Phoenix with the Shaq deal, I can't help but wonder if the Mavs are fixated on what Kidd was 18 months ago rather than what he'll be over the next 18 months.</div> I'd say Hollinger is spot on with his final conclusion. He hedges that it's possible it could work, but the upgrade at PG appears marginal and the risk associated in the deal outweighs the reward. </div> I disagree completely. Kidd is a huge upgrade over Harris as he is someone that can actually get his teammates easy shots. Dallas has to play iso-fest offense because they have no guard that can create for anyone else. Additionally, Kidd will still be fine in 18 months. He has been dogging it this season and will rev it up when he gets to a place where he wants to be. </div> He's not suggesting Kidd isn't an upgrade, he's suggesting it's a marginal one and an area Dallas wasn't struggling at to begin with. Kidd's turnover ratio is 10.4 to 3.6 right now Harris turnover ratio is 5.3 to 2.4 right now Harris isn't the creator and playmaker Kidd is, but Kidd isn't the scorer Harris is. </div> I use the word huge for a reason. Hollinger is wrong that it is a marginal upgrade. As I stated, it only appeared Dallas wasn't struggling because they run so much iso-fest offense. However, it is chicken and egg. Dallas runs iso-fest because they don't have a play making guard.
