Posted by bettalaylow:
Why are you trying to make this into "he's insulting me conversation" find serious problems with your logic and your failure to address my questions with your logic only further demostrates that your whole hypothesis hasn't really been thought through.
I actually completely missed most of your response, since it was embedded into the quote. I do stand behind observing your agressiveness with declaring yourself the victor. That, to me, shows a level of stubborness. I mean why discuss something with someone who refuses to consider the other side on any level? Does that even indicate that you're listening?
I asked if you believe assists are overrated should fans discount what Steve Nash or Jason Kidd has done for their teams?
You're taking it in a different context. I'm just saying that assists don't tell a hell of a lot. Certainly, a good assist count isn't a *negative* thing, but is it such a positive thing? It depends. Jason Kidd and Steve Nash ARE great distributors. Their teammates excel with them at the point. That's a lot better determination than the assist stat. Do they have good teammates? Yes. Are their teammates better because those guys are running the point? Yes.
Should players like Oscar Roberston, Magic Johnson, and John Stockton Hall of Fame status be called into question since (in your thought process) a major component of their game is "overrated"? Listen I hate Isiah Thomas GM/Coach as much as the next guy but as a player again he falls into the same category as the Magic Johnson, Stockton, Roberston category.
I never got a clear answer on that question as well what in relevance to Iverson; Sixer players were held back by Iverson's crazy shot selections? Finally how would you keep this "statistic"? In the end how much more understanding could it bring to the game?
Look. Stop telling me what MY thought process is. What you're reciting is *your* interpretation of *my* thought process, which is not equivalent to my actual thought process. I'm not even saying that being a great scoring point guard is a bad thing either. Purely that a single stat is not shedding a lot of light on whether a player is a good distributor or not. It's not a knock on great players, who we know were great regardless of any particular stat. Tying it back to Iverson is as follows: a few posters made a point that equated to "Iverson has no problem distributing because he gets 7+ assists a game." I beg to differ. When a player has more touches than the rest of his team combined (before you knock me, this is probably a slight exaggeration), 7 assists seems pretty low. Iverson hasn't played next to many good scorers for the most part, so it's a fair argument to say that he's that way out of necessity. I can buy that to some extent. Carmelo will be back soon enough, and it will be interesting when Iverson has to actually share the ball. The last time Iverson was put next to a great scorer, the Sixers had to make a trade to allievate the situation (Stackhouse). Going by the past, yes, I can see there being an issue, and I'm somewhat in the middle when referring to whether or not Iverson can successfully play next to another player who requires so many touches and shots.
Now, how to keep the statistic is an interesting thought. It's probably not one that the NBA would be interested in keeping, but you never know. That being said, I never was talking about a statistic that should be kept. I was talking about a concept. Watch the games and you can get a feel if a player is getting a crazy amount of touches... that maybe, just maybe, 7 assists doesn't seem so great.
The reason why questioned how much you've even seen this man play is because I was assuming that you live in the NY area which would mean Sixer's game aren't apart of the regular broadcasting so really if your going to attempt to discredit a player your not exactly in the position to question a particular aspect of his game especially when that questioning flies directly in the face of fact.
And this is why I find your way of thinking insulting. How many times do you have to see a player play before you're qualified to make some sort of judgment? 10 games? 50 games? 1000 games? I've seen Iverson play enough to know his style. I've seen him have games where he didn't get his teammates involved. I've seem him have games where he did. There's enough inconsistency of when I have seen him to raise doubt as to how much of his ball-hogging is necessary vs. how much is just him needing to have the ball at all times.
Am I an expert on Allen Iverson? Probably not. Are you? Probably not. Now, when you say flies in the face of fact, I do take personal offense to that. You're escalated *your opinion* to fact. How do you expect to have a discussion when you keep declaring yourself the winner because you're incapable of understanding alternate point of views? That's just ignorant and, frankly, not worth my time.
Now im sorry that you find it personally insulting that I so heatedly disagree with your thought-process but I'm certaintly not attacking you personally perse but rather questioning your theories.
Again, putting words in my mouth. I have no problem with you disagreeing. But the way you present it is inflammatory. I also don't think you're questioning my theories. I think you're trying to raise your ego by making a blatant attempt to prove me wrong. You haven't, despite the multitude of times in this thread that you've declared yourself the winner, obnoxiously laughed at my opinion, or insulted my knowledge of the subject. If you want to continue this discussion, you'll need to learn a little respect for others.
[Edited by - Solace on Jan 03 2007 6:20 PM]Wishing everyone well. I enjoyed posting here for a while, but as I matured I realized this forum isn't for me. We all evolve. Thanks for the memories everyone.
