jrodmc wrote:

knickscity wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:Can anyone tell me why Paul Pierce prior to KG and Ray was in the lotto more than he was in the playoffs? Not too many "greats" have done that.

And mind you...this was during the weakest period the EC has been in a while.

So called great had 3 out of 9 seasons with a winning record....5 lottos....east so bad 36 wins got a playoff berth.

GTFO with this Pierce was always good nonsense, he was the recipient of some damn good teammates.

He even made Doc Rivers look like trash trying to coach that team back then.

Paul Pierce was a stat stuffing loser before 2008.....10 seasons of nothingness.

because team accomplishments are dependent on the quality of all 12 active players. It's a bad way to evaluate the performance of any one of the 12 players. How about Isiah Thomas missing the playoffs 4 times, Joe Dumars (3), Reggie Miller (3), Charles Barkley (3), Walt Frazier (5), and Willis Reed (3)?

Pierce was missing the playoffs in his prime and when he was younger....none of those guys missed the playoffs more as the best player, and certainly not as many in their prime.

Pierce had only 1 season in his prime where he was healthy and the team missed the playoffs. You're evaluating the issue as a Pierce hater, not an objective outsider IMO.

Celtics missed the playoffs 5 out of the first 9 years Pierce was a Celtic and then the team went on the great run with the big three. When exactly was his healthy prime pre-Garnett/Allen?

Pierce only had one year where he missed significant time and they werent winning even when he played that year....which was the year before the big three forming.

From age 23 to 28 he missed less than 10 games....the guy was durable and played...he just was not winning while being the best player.

+10 to the 80th power [checked my math this time]
Game, set, match.

Best player, and not even good enough to qualify as a first round exit ramp.

Funny, PP gets 4 pages of defense, and Melo gets as many threads per page telling us what an inefficient loser fhuckup he is. And yet, on every list you can look up of active players, Melo is considered top 10 to get into the HOF.

There's an analogy for you.

Bonn1997 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

knickscity wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:Can anyone tell me why Paul Pierce prior to KG and Ray was in the lotto more than he was in the playoffs? Not too many "greats" have done that.

And mind you...this was during the weakest period the EC has been in a while.

So called great had 3 out of 9 seasons with a winning record....5 lottos....east so bad 36 wins got a playoff berth.

GTFO with this Pierce was always good nonsense, he was the recipient of some damn good teammates.

He even made Doc Rivers look like trash trying to coach that team back then.

Paul Pierce was a stat stuffing loser before 2008.....10 seasons of nothingness.

because team accomplishments are dependent on the quality of all 12 active players. It's a bad way to evaluate the performance of any one of the 12 players. How about Isiah Thomas missing the playoffs 4 times, Joe Dumars (3), Reggie Miller (3), Charles Barkley (3), Walt Frazier (5), and Willis Reed (3)?

Pierce was missing the playoffs in his prime and when he was younger....none of those guys missed the playoffs more as the best player, and certainly not as many in their prime.

Pierce had only 1 season in his prime where he was healthy and the team missed the playoffs. You're evaluating the issue as a Pierce hater, not an objective outsider IMO.

Celtics missed the playoffs 5 out of the first 9 years Pierce was a Celtic and then the team went on the great run with the big three. When exactly was his healthy prime pre-Garnett/Allen?

Pierce only had one year where he missed significant time and they werent winning even when he played that year....which was the year before the big three forming.

From age 23 to 28 he missed less than 10 games....the guy was durable and played...he just was not winning while being the best player.

+10 to the 80th power [checked my math this time]
Game, set, match.

Best player, and not even good enough to qualify as a first round exit ramp.

Funny, PP gets 4 pages of defense, and Melo gets as many threads per page telling us what an inefficient loser fhuckup he is. And yet, on every list you can look up of active players, Melo is considered top 10 to get into the HOF.

There's an analogy for you.

This boils down to you simply disliking the fact that some people give a lot of weight to offensive efficiency

Mr. What's An Analogy is not sticking to the analagous points of the post?
Point 1) playoff appearances
Point 2) HOF

Aren't your stapler and your car both made of steel and plastic? Why are you telling me your stapler doesn't roll very well?

Bonn1997 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

knickscity wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:Can anyone tell me why Paul Pierce prior to KG and Ray was in the lotto more than he was in the playoffs? Not too many "greats" have done that.

And mind you...this was during the weakest period the EC has been in a while.

So called great had 3 out of 9 seasons with a winning record....5 lottos....east so bad 36 wins got a playoff berth.

GTFO with this Pierce was always good nonsense, he was the recipient of some damn good teammates.

He even made Doc Rivers look like trash trying to coach that team back then.

Paul Pierce was a stat stuffing loser before 2008.....10 seasons of nothingness.

because team accomplishments are dependent on the quality of all 12 active players. It's a bad way to evaluate the performance of any one of the 12 players. How about Isiah Thomas missing the playoffs 4 times, Joe Dumars (3), Reggie Miller (3), Charles Barkley (3), Walt Frazier (5), and Willis Reed (3)?

Pierce was missing the playoffs in his prime and when he was younger....none of those guys missed the playoffs more as the best player, and certainly not as many in their prime.

Pierce had only 1 season in his prime where he was healthy and the team missed the playoffs. You're evaluating the issue as a Pierce hater, not an objective outsider IMO.

Celtics missed the playoffs 5 out of the first 9 years Pierce was a Celtic and then the team went on the great run with the big three. When exactly was his healthy prime pre-Garnett/Allen?

Pierce only had one year where he missed significant time and they werent winning even when he played that year....which was the year before the big three forming.

From age 23 to 28 he missed less than 10 games....the guy was durable and played...he just was not winning while being the best player.

+10 to the 80th power [checked my math this time]
Game, set, match.

Best player, and not even good enough to qualify as a first round exit ramp.

Funny, PP gets 4 pages of defense, and Melo gets as many threads per page telling us what an inefficient loser fhuckup he is. And yet, on every list you can look up of active players, Melo is considered top 10 to get into the HOF.

There's an analogy for you.

This boils down to you simply disliking the fact that some people give a lot of weight to offensive efficiency

Mr. What's An Analogy is not sticking to the analagous points of the post?
Point 1) playoff appearances
Point 2) HOF

Aren't your stapler and your car both made of steel and plastic? Why are you telling me your stapler doesn't roll very well?

Right, and you don't like the fact that I place more emphasis on the individual's performance (including offensive efficiency) than on those factors.
You want people to give huge weight to a factor that the player is only 1/12th responsible for (team performance) and misguided lay perception (popularity contests like all-star voting).
You also want people to fanatically over-rate Knick players and underrate rivals.

Sorry, thought this was a Knick fan site. My bad.

Bonn1997 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

knickscity wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:Can anyone tell me why Paul Pierce prior to KG and Ray was in the lotto more than he was in the playoffs? Not too many "greats" have done that.

And mind you...this was during the weakest period the EC has been in a while.

So called great had 3 out of 9 seasons with a winning record....5 lottos....east so bad 36 wins got a playoff berth.

GTFO with this Pierce was always good nonsense, he was the recipient of some damn good teammates.

He even made Doc Rivers look like trash trying to coach that team back then.

Paul Pierce was a stat stuffing loser before 2008.....10 seasons of nothingness.

because team accomplishments are dependent on the quality of all 12 active players. It's a bad way to evaluate the performance of any one of the 12 players. How about Isiah Thomas missing the playoffs 4 times, Joe Dumars (3), Reggie Miller (3), Charles Barkley (3), Walt Frazier (5), and Willis Reed (3)?

Pierce was missing the playoffs in his prime and when he was younger....none of those guys missed the playoffs more as the best player, and certainly not as many in their prime.

Pierce had only 1 season in his prime where he was healthy and the team missed the playoffs. You're evaluating the issue as a Pierce hater, not an objective outsider IMO.

Celtics missed the playoffs 5 out of the first 9 years Pierce was a Celtic and then the team went on the great run with the big three. When exactly was his healthy prime pre-Garnett/Allen?

Pierce only had one year where he missed significant time and they werent winning even when he played that year....which was the year before the big three forming.

From age 23 to 28 he missed less than 10 games....the guy was durable and played...he just was not winning while being the best player.

+10 to the 80th power [checked my math this time]
Game, set, match.

Best player, and not even good enough to qualify as a first round exit ramp.

Funny, PP gets 4 pages of defense, and Melo gets as many threads per page telling us what an inefficient loser fhuckup he is. And yet, on every list you can look up of active players, Melo is considered top 10 to get into the HOF.

There's an analogy for you.

This boils down to you simply disliking the fact that some people give a lot of weight to offensive efficiency

Mr. What's An Analogy is not sticking to the analagous points of the post?
Point 1) playoff appearances
Point 2) HOF

Aren't your stapler and your car both made of steel and plastic? Why are you telling me your stapler doesn't roll very well?

Right, and you don't like the fact that I place more emphasis on the individual's performance (including offensive efficiency) than on those factors.
You want people to give huge weight to a factor that the player is only 1/12th responsible for (team performance) and misguided lay perception (popularity contests like all-star voting).
You also want people to fanatically over-rate Knick players and underrate rivals.

Since when is a hof'er only 1/12 responsible for team success? Come on dude.

And sorry,fans normally vote in the best players, and the guys they see...I'm sure Pierce would have been voted in if he could put more W's up for his team.

It's rare when undeserving players get VOTED in...that usually the coaches that botch that up which I guess is why Pierce made it even though most times his team stunk while he was the best player.

knickscity wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

knickscity wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:Can anyone tell me why Paul Pierce prior to KG and Ray was in the lotto more than he was in the playoffs? Not too many "greats" have done that.

And mind you...this was during the weakest period the EC has been in a while.

So called great had 3 out of 9 seasons with a winning record....5 lottos....east so bad 36 wins got a playoff berth.

GTFO with this Pierce was always good nonsense, he was the recipient of some damn good teammates.

He even made Doc Rivers look like trash trying to coach that team back then.

Paul Pierce was a stat stuffing loser before 2008.....10 seasons of nothingness.

because team accomplishments are dependent on the quality of all 12 active players. It's a bad way to evaluate the performance of any one of the 12 players. How about Isiah Thomas missing the playoffs 4 times, Joe Dumars (3), Reggie Miller (3), Charles Barkley (3), Walt Frazier (5), and Willis Reed (3)?

Pierce was missing the playoffs in his prime and when he was younger....none of those guys missed the playoffs more as the best player, and certainly not as many in their prime.

Pierce had only 1 season in his prime where he was healthy and the team missed the playoffs. You're evaluating the issue as a Pierce hater, not an objective outsider IMO.

Celtics missed the playoffs 5 out of the first 9 years Pierce was a Celtic and then the team went on the great run with the big three. When exactly was his healthy prime pre-Garnett/Allen?

Pierce only had one year where he missed significant time and they werent winning even when he played that year....which was the year before the big three forming.

From age 23 to 28 he missed less than 10 games....the guy was durable and played...he just was not winning while being the best player.

+10 to the 80th power [checked my math this time]
Game, set, match.

Best player, and not even good enough to qualify as a first round exit ramp.

Funny, PP gets 4 pages of defense, and Melo gets as many threads per page telling us what an inefficient loser fhuckup he is. And yet, on every list you can look up of active players, Melo is considered top 10 to get into the HOF.

There's an analogy for you.

This boils down to you simply disliking the fact that some people give a lot of weight to offensive efficiency

Mr. What's An Analogy is not sticking to the analagous points of the post?
Point 1) playoff appearances
Point 2) HOF

Aren't your stapler and your car both made of steel and plastic? Why are you telling me your stapler doesn't roll very well?

Right, and you don't like the fact that I place more emphasis on the individual's performance (including offensive efficiency) than on those factors.
You want people to give huge weight to a factor that the player is only 1/12th responsible for (team performance) and misguided lay perception (popularity contests like all-star voting).
You also want people to fanatically over-rate Knick players and underrate rivals.

Since when is a hof'er only 1/12 responsible for team success? Come on dude.

And sorry,fans normally vote in the best players, and the guys they see...I'm sure Pierce would have been voted in if he could put more W's up for his team.

It's rare when undeserving players get VOTED in...that usually the coaches that botch that up which I guess is why Pierce made it even though most times his team stunk while he was the best player.

With all this HOF talk, what does the UK think of Robert Horry and him deserving HOF or not?

knickscity wrote:

skeng wrote:As much as I hate PP, he'll probably get in the HOF. He has the Laker-Celtic rivalry going for him too, everyone eats that shyt up

With all this HOF talk, what does the UK think of Robert Horry and him deserving HOF or not?

Pierce will make the hall, he actually deserve it statistically, you dont even have to win to get in.

Horry though, I'm not gonna say he doesnt deserve it, but it opens up alot of doors for everyone.

Placing Robert Horry in opens the door for the Steve Kerrs, which in turn opens the door for the James Posey's and so forth.

i don't see anything wrong with that,

it's the hall of fame, not the hall of good stats,

horry deserves to be in the hall of fame more than melo,

it's there to celebrate the figures that played a big part in the history of the game; the lore,

how many points per game did james naismith score?

horry is an iconic figure, this guy drilled ice cold treys that were key for like 5 championships,

IronWillGiroud wrote:it's the hall of FAME,

it's there to celebrate the figures that played a big part in the history of the game; the lore,

how many points per game did james naismith score?

horry is an iconic figure, this guy drilled ice cold treys that were key for like 5 championships,

knickscity wrote:

IronWillGiroud wrote:

knickscity wrote:

skeng wrote:As much as I hate PP, he'll probably get in the HOF. He has the Laker-Celtic rivalry going for him too, everyone eats that shyt up

With all this HOF talk, what does the UK think of Robert Horry and him deserving HOF or not?

Pierce will make the hall, he actually deserve it statistically, you dont even have to win to get in.

Horry though, I'm not gonna say he doesnt deserve it, but it opens up alot of doors for everyone.

Placing Robert Horry in opens the door for the Steve Kerrs, which in turn opens the door for the James Posey's and so forth.

i don't see anything wrong with that,

it's the hall of fame, not the hall of good stats,

horry deserves to be in the hall of fame more than melo,

I'd love to hear why you say this.

Keep in mind it's a basketball HOF, not NBA.

that's a strong point

Bonn1997 wrote:

IronWillGiroud wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

IronWillGiroud wrote:it's the hall of FAME,

it's there to celebrate the figures that played a big part in the history of the game; the lore,

how many points per game did james naismith score?

horry is an iconic figure, this guy drilled ice cold treys that were key for like 5 championships,

Does Horry really have that much fame? I bet less than 10% of people you encounter have even heard of him.

Would more than 10% of people you encounter know who James Naismith is?

the guys that know the game, that love the game, know who he is,

and that's what the Hall of Fame is for: it's the basketball Hall of Fame

Naismith was from like a hundred years ago. Of course the general public doesn't remember him. It's not like most adults saw him every day and have already forgotten about him. Horry's been forgotten and he just retired 5 yrs ago!

Speaking of, I'm wondering how did that idea of the fans having a vote work out? I think the fans get to vote on a printed list and their total votes count as one of the 18 "experts".