This is basically the summary of our interaction about this:RingColluder wrote:og15 wrote:RingColluder wrote:
It takes 2 seconds to look into a post. So its noted you consider nothing I said in the message to be considered at all so that is highly noted for future posts I make.
And re: Pelicans. You literally spent THREE PAGES downplaying the importance of the Pelicans game compared to other games in relation to that one starting here. You want me to quote 8 of your paragraphs?
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2075612&start=20
You're talking mathematically and not seeing the bigger picture. The Pelicans game was a GIMEE. That's like saying a game vs. the Lakers has the exact same importance in terms of losing vs. losing a game to the Timberwolves when one game is far easier to win than another.
Again, look at your last 4 pages in that thread or just keep backtracking. Just admit it buddy. You can argue semantics all you want, you were downplaying the importance of us losing the pelicans game. That's a fact.
I have PM'd you, if you want to discuss moderating, don't derail threads, that's what PM's are for.
I would be interested in at least one quote that supports the assertion you are making. I'd say that if it is true that I said, and I quote you, "the Pelicans game didn't matter", it would be pretty evident in at least one post. One wouldn't need to quote all 8 posts (didn't even know that's how many I made), just the one it is clearly evident in. If you were able to know that I made 8 posts, it means you read all the posts I made in that thread, so if you had seen the clear example of me saying or suggesting this, you would have just quoted it.
Context is extremely important, you should go back and read the thread to remind yourself of the context, but I'll just say that you're pretty off on this one, but if you can show where I argued what you are saying, I would be interested to see it.
And no, I didn't downplay us losing the Pelicans game, what I did was argue against MartintoVaught (and you also) trying to suggest it was a more important and higher pressure game and all the other games the Clippers had been playing, seemingly to set up the opportunity to direct increased vitriol towards Paul George. MartintoVaught seemingly in order to throw extra criticism at PG suggested that he had a bad game because it was an important seeding/high pressure game, since it was an easier game to win, but George just had good games in 4 previous also important seeding games, so what's the logic in that one being MORE important then the rest of those easy games? Paul George was 4/5 in good games vs the weaker teams in an important stretch for seeding, with Kawhi out, and basically as if one is waiting for him to fail, as soon as he has a bad game, "see, THIS ONE is the important seeding game, this was the high pressure game, and look, he failed". Really though? Really?
Did any of us actually expect that the team would sweep all games vs non-contender teams with Kawhi out? Even when PG is out and Kawhi is playing, we don't expect that. We lost to the Spurs, Kings and Celtics (who were struggling) with Kawhi and no PG. We lost to Washington who was 14-20 at the time with Kawhi and no PG, and also lost to Orlando with Kawhi and no PG. New Orleans had actually given the Clippers problems already, beating them by 20 with both PG and Kawhi playing.
So no, you're WAY OFF. I was not downplaying the importance of the game, I was arguing against the attempt to value the game ABOVE all the other similar games, especially since I don't remember any chatter like that going on in the games Kawhi played without George.
Since this has become a pissing contest to you, I'll happily show every post:
"Every game from now on will have seeding implications, so I'm not really going to say this game has more than last game did or the next one will." (downplaying importance)
"
Why is this game a more important seeding game than the Houston game? I'm not getting how this game importance ranking is working." (downplaying importance)
Wednesday vs Phoenix is a more important seeding game, Clippers can get the Suns to 19 losses, and one loss closer to having the same as them. Playing the team or teams ahead of you in the standungs is the only guaranteed chance to give them a loss, every other game vs other teams to get a win is equally as important. (downplaying importance)
"I'm not saying it isn't important, of course, (yes you are) but the Houston game was even easier on paper (and the Wolves), so on the same reasoning those were more important than New Orleans. They pulled off the win vs Houston even though it was close, this game was not any more important than the Houston, Grizzlies, Blazers or Wolves games, that's my point. I don't like this assigning greater importance to games whenever we decide to without a consistent method.
All games against weaker teams are going to be equally as important, so PG showed up and performed for like 4 straight equally important games, then to say he doesn't show up in the important games doesn't make sense. By this standard, basically any bad game he has the rest of the season would just be narrated to be specifically important and one can say, "oh look he didn't show up in the important games".
The most important games are going to be the games against teams close in the standings because those are the only ones where the Clippers can impact giving loses to those teams, but of course those are also harder games."
"Every single loss is going to be, "the type of game that determines whether the Clippers are 1 or 3", you know what games are going determine that even more so, a game against the Suns." (downplaying importance)
" don't start making up some stuff (not you specifically, but anyone) about this game being some high pressure, specially important game in order to magnify his bad game as more than it I"
Who said the game wasn’t important? (you downplayed it this entire time) It is MartintoVaught, and you seem to be inconsistent about whether you are saying so or not, who are saying it was MORE important. Was this game more important than vs Houston, Memphis, Portland or Minnesota? If yes, please explain exactly why. If no, then Paul George played well in 4/5 important recent games, he was trash in one. Okay, that sucked, but unless one was expecting 100% consistency from him, extrapolating that into something larger makes little sense. Yes, we know he had a bad playoff last season, that has NOTHING to do with him having 1 bad game in his last who knows how many.
-- You are arguing semantics. You downplayed the importance of losing the Pelicans game that is a FACT. You are the one way off base. Carry on. This is now to the point of derailing other board conversations. You were PM'd, you've said what you wanted--drop it. Now.
Ring Colluder: “Aren’t you the one that said the Pelicans game DIDN’T MATTER”
og15: I did? Where? What post? What context?
RingColluder: Well you argued that it wasn’t MORE important than every other SIMILAR game because someone was trying to suggest it was the most important recent game in order to get on PG more than needed. You also argued that the Phoenix game was a MORE important seeding game in the race vs Phoenix than the games vs other teams simply because it is a chance to make Phoenix lose, so therefore that means you were downplaying the Pelicans game, and that you actually meant that it didn’t matter.
og15:....right....
Yikes! I mean, I’m not really sure what you want me to say at this point, you already had your conclusion and narrative, so I’m not even sure why you were even trying to have me comment lol.