I chose Kobe and TMac because they are regarded as the cream of the crop in terms of scoring guards in the league. Maybe now you add Arenas to that. But since ooha answered my question

Fishmik, why do you always leave off the last 'H' of my alias? Is it purposeful?

I don't have the time right now to post Arenas' stats, but if you take a look at them you will see that he has most certainly evolved into a chucker.

There is no flaw to the arguement at all? Who are the best scoring guards in the league, and which one's arent chuckers?

You tell me...

So since ooha has established that Kobe, Tmac and AI are ALL chuckers it doesnt matter.

The reason the argument is flawed is that regardless of what position they are listed at, the only similarity between these players is that they shoot a lot. Outside of that they are not similar. (Arenas is more similar to AI than McGrady or Bryant.)

Those are some pretty great players to slap such a deragatory label on but thats your opinion.

So since these guys are excellent players they can't be chuckers? I am not sure what the basis of your complaint is here. Anyway, the unfortunate truth is that we are watching an era of chucking as we write. Did you watch Kobe last night? Please don't tell me he wasn't chucking. Now if you are arguing that Kobe or Bryant need to chuck because of the team they are playing with, I might agree.

AI isnt my hero. But I have followed his career a bit and seen him live probably 10 times or so. People that write off what he does as just a little guy that chucks up a ton of shots are selling him short. Larry Brown said himself you cant stop him. Whats even more interesting is you would be hard pressed to find a coach that loathes bad shots MORE than Larry Brown, yet when Larry coached AI he put a system in place that had AI taking 30 shots a game. Maybe he changed his philosophy because AI is a special chucker, or maybe he just understood that when you take 30 shots a game a handfull are going to be suspect, but that handfull is probably going to be offset by the 10+ FTs he's taking.

Okay!

Sure AI could shoot less and have a higher FT%. But the teams he's played on have always needed his scoring to be successfull. A gimpy Webber is probably the best big he's ever had. He's never had a Shaq or Yao that was good for much higher % shots.

You may have just explained why AI is a chucker.

oohah

Fishmik, why do you always leave off the last 'H' of my alias? Is it purposeful?

sorry

What is the purpose of the last 'H'? Isn't it silent?

It is the proper spelling for the pronunciation. Think of it as "ooh-ah", like the sound a crowd makes when Vince Carter dunks, except faster. If you leave off the last H it becomes "ooh-ha". if you leave out the H's it becomes "oowa"

oohah

Posted by fishmike:

If you leave off the last H it becomes "ooh-ha".

see? Thats how I always said it in my mind.

Me too. You need a space or a dash in there.

[Edited by - Knight on 11-28-2005 10:16 AM]

I always thought it was ooh-ha too
I like it now that I understand it but I don't think anyone got it before this thread. You could probably ask Martin and Andrew if a dash could be inserted after the 1st h.

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 11-28-2005 6:36 PM]

Sure AI could shoot less and have a higher FT%. But the teams he's played on have always needed his scoring to be successfull. A gimpy Webber is probably the best big he's ever had. He's never had a Shaq or Yao that was good for much higher % shots.

He's had plenty of good (but not great scorers), but that's not the point. He SHOULDN'T be taking five 3s a game and another five 2s near the perimeter. Dalembert can probably score more effectively in the post than Iverson can shooting 3s. Iverson's like a less intelligent Dwyane Wade on offense. Wade knows he's outstanding at attacking the basket but simply is not a perimeter shooter and almost never takes 3s. Iverson could be just as efficient a scorer as Wade is if he had similar shot selection to Wade's.