SoTD: Bargnani's defensive numbers over 4 years

[Harry Palmer]

There are, imo, a few flawed assumptions going unchallenged here, but all in all this is the kind of discussion this place should be about, especially if you mentally edit out the need some posters have to reduce these things to personal agendas.

[dagger]

especially if you mentally edit out the need some posters have to reduce these things to personal agendas.

Certainly lets you out.

[Harry Palmer]

especially if you mentally edit out the need some posters have to reduce these things to personal agendas.

Certainly lets you out.

+500 for completely misunderstanding my point, and proving it.

Awesome.

Here, to make it clearer: ..."if you mentally edit out the need some posters have to marginalize unwelcome arguments by attributing them to personal agendas."

Just awesome.

[dagger]

especially if you mentally edit out the need some posters have to reduce these things to personal agendas.

Certainly lets you out.

+500 for completely misunderstanding my point, and proving it.

Awesome.

Here, to make it clearer: ..."if you mentally edit out the need some posters have to marginalize unwelcome arguments by attributing them to personal agendas."

Just awesome.

No, the shoe still fits you well, Cinderella.

[raptorforlife88]

There are, imo, a few flawed assumptions going unchallenged here, but all in all this is the kind of discussion this place should be about, especially if you mentally edit out the need some posters have to reduce these things to personal agendas.

Are you planning on jumping in Palmer?

[Harry Palmer]

There are, imo, a few flawed assumptions going unchallenged here, but all in all this is the kind of discussion this place should be about, especially if you mentally edit out the need some posters have to reduce these things to personal agendas.

Are you planning on jumping in Palmer?

Well, among other things, the idea that putting pressure on the ball is the priority of any defense. That's certainly true for many schemes, but by no means all...some predicate reactive as opposed to active defense, and others, for example, structure preset positional denials of offensive preferences as the primary function, with the ball itself actually being secondary so long as it stays out of those zones.

Just as an example.

Another is the idea that the center position's defensive priority is structural or conceptually created, as opposed to being essentially based on the rules of physics as they apply to the game of basketball.

John Thompson FTW?

[Harry Palmer]

No, the shoe still fits you well, Cinderella.

Keep proving my point, man. Couldn't script it better.

[barrist]

There are, imo, a few flawed assumptions going unchallenged here, but all in all this is the kind of discussion this place should be about, especially if you mentally edit out the need some posters have to reduce these things to personal agendas.

And Harry ruins another thread.

EDIT: , man.

[wolfv]

Harry didn't ruin anything. Overly sensitive bargs fans on the other hand...

[Ripp]

EDIT: I made a long post, but thought it might be better to start a separate thread to discuss Boris's results.

See the link here:
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=1048761

[OvertimeNO]

Harry didn't ruin anything. Overly sensitive bargs fans on the other hand...

Actually, your typical and tired - almost contrived - response is just as much part and parcel as Harry Palmer's participation, and almost everything else that has taken place in this thread, in contributing to the current state of dialectic stagnation inherent to discussions of a certain polarizing individual. If you take the time to read the thread, you'll note that I, and others, have alluded to certain inevitabilities that have indeed come to pass. If your particular response has not been explicitly forecast, it is only due to the fact that is so typical and yet so inherent to the foundation of logical entropy that is initiated - willingly and no - by many posters unwilling to examine their own preconceptions and are willing to contribute to a meaningful discussion.

And even while enjoying the atypical conversation that emerged due to a combination of factors, I lamented the fact that this board's dialectic is self-perpetuating and self-correcting, and that what some (including myself, at some points) saw as an emergent property, the board would eventually treat as a flaw, the solution to which Mr. Palmer served as the unwitting agent of delivery.

And to those who would argue that I am using contrived and unnecessarily complex rhetoric intentionally in order to obfuscate the fact that I have no original argument, and am in fact purposely sabotaging any possible continuance of a meaningful discussion by "salting the earth", so to speak, I am not responsible for your failure to comprehend the intricacy of my point, and would suggest you conduct an independent analysis on the generally inhospitable nature of online interaction with regards to dialectics.

[Eating a Book]

Harry didn't ruin anything. Overly sensitive bargs fans on the other hand...

Actually, your typical and tired - almost contrived - response is just as much part and parcel as Harry Palmer's participation, and almost everything else that has taken place in this thread, in contributing to the current state of dialectic stagnation inherent to discussions of a certain polarizing individual. If you take the time to read the thread, you'll note that I, and others, have alluded to certain inevitabilities that have indeed come to pass. If your particular response has not been explicitly forecast, it is only due to the fact that is so typical and yet so inherent to the foundation of logical entropy that is initiated - willingly and no - by many posters unwilling to examine their own preconceptions and are willing to contribute to a meaningful discussion.

And even while enjoying the atypical conversation that emerged due to a combination of factors, I lamented the fact that this board's dialectic is self-perpetuating and self-correcting, and that what some (including myself, at some points) saw as an emergent property, the board would eventually treat as a flaw, the solution to which Mr. Palmer served as the unwitting agent of delivery.

And to those who would argue that I am using contrived and unnecessarily complex rhetoric intentionally in order to obfuscate the fact that I have no original argument, and am in fact purposely sabotaging any possible continuance of a meaningful discussion by "salting the earth", so to speak, I am not responsible for your failure to comprehend the intricacy of my point, and would suggest you conduct an independent analysis on the generally inhospitable nature of online interaction with regards to dialectics.

I feel like I just read a page from an Umberto Eco novel. I'm far too sober for this.

[OvertimeNO]

Harry didn't ruin anything. Overly sensitive bargs fans on the other hand...

Actually, your typical and tired - almost contrived - response is just as much part and parcel as Harry Palmer's participation, and almost everything else that has taken place in this thread, in contributing to the current state of dialectic stagnation inherent to discussions of a certain polarizing individual. If you take the time to read the thread, you'll note that I, and others, have alluded to certain inevitabilities that have indeed come to pass. If your particular response has not been explicitly forecast, it is only due to the fact that is so typical and yet so inherent to the foundation of logical entropy that is initiated - willingly and no - by many posters unwilling to examine their own preconceptions and are willing to contribute to a meaningful discussion.

And even while enjoying the atypical conversation that emerged due to a combination of factors, I lamented the fact that this board's dialectic is self-perpetuating and self-correcting, and that what some (including myself, at some points) saw as an emergent property, the board would eventually treat as a flaw, the solution to which Mr. Palmer served as the unwitting agent of delivery.

And to those who would argue that I am using contrived and unnecessarily complex rhetoric intentionally in order to obfuscate the fact that I have no original argument, and am in fact purposely sabotaging any possible continuance of a meaningful discussion by "salting the earth", so to speak, I am not responsible for your failure to comprehend the intricacy of my point, and would suggest you conduct an independent analysis on the generally inhospitable nature of online interaction with regards to dialectics.

I feel like I just read a page from an Umberto Eco novel. I'm far too sober for this.

Mission accomplished?

[Ripp]

Lol, that post was epic

[mihaic]

Harry didn't ruin anything. Overly sensitive bargs fans on the other hand...

Actually, your typical and tired - almost contrived - response is just as much part and parcel as Harry Palmer's participation, and almost everything else that has taken place in this thread, in contributing to the current state of dialectic stagnation inherent to discussions of a certain polarizing individual. If you take the time to read the thread, you'll note that I, and others, have alluded to certain inevitabilities that have indeed come to pass. If your particular response has not been explicitly forecast, it is only due to the fact that is so typical and yet so inherent to the foundation of logical entropy that is initiated - willingly and no - by many posters unwilling to examine their own preconceptions and are willing to contribute to a meaningful discussion.

And even while enjoying the atypical conversation that emerged due to a combination of factors, I lamented the fact that this board's dialectic is self-perpetuating and self-correcting, and that what some (including myself, at some points) saw as an emergent property, the board would eventually treat as a flaw, the solution to which Mr. Palmer served as the unwitting agent of delivery.

And to those who would argue that I am using contrived and unnecessarily complex rhetoric intentionally in order to obfuscate the fact that I have no original argument, and am in fact purposely sabotaging any possible continuance of a meaningful discussion by "salting the earth", so to speak, I am not responsible for your failure to comprehend the intricacy of my point, and would suggest you conduct an independent analysis on the generally inhospitable nature of online interaction with regards to dialectics.

This elaborated yet unnecesarily intricate post epitomises the essence of the late development in the otherwise stagnant and dull discussion. LOL and well done sir, and excuse my esl

[Ripp]

I don't know enough big words to write three whole paragraphs in that style. I've read the post again, and came away even more impressed...

[Kevin Willis]

Harry didn't ruin anything. Overly sensitive bargs fans on the other hand...

Actually, your typical and tired - almost contrived - response is just as much part and parcel as Harry Palmer's participation, and almost everything else that has taken place in this thread, in contributing to the current state of dialectic stagnation inherent to discussions of a certain polarizing individual. If you take the time to read the thread, you'll note that I, and others, have alluded to certain inevitabilities that have indeed come to pass. If your particular response has not been explicitly forecast, it is only due to the fact that is so typical and yet so inherent to the foundation of logical entropy that is initiated - willingly and no - by many posters unwilling to examine their own preconceptions and are willing to contribute to a meaningful discussion.

And even while enjoying the atypical conversation that emerged due to a combination of factors, I lamented the fact that this board's dialectic is self-perpetuating and self-correcting, and that what some (including myself, at some points) saw as an emergent property, the board would eventually treat as a flaw, the solution to which Mr. Palmer served as the unwitting agent of delivery.

And to those who would argue that I am using contrived and unnecessarily complex rhetoric intentionally in order to obfuscate the fact that I have no original argument, and am in fact purposely sabotaging any possible continuance of a meaningful discussion by "salting the earth", so to speak, I am not responsible for your failure to comprehend the intricacy of my point, and would suggest you conduct an independent analysis on the generally inhospitable nature of online interaction with regards to dialectics.

You are my new mancrush. A guy that speaks that well that has an avatar of a teen idol is a delicious contradiction in and of itself. Plus you made sense, while not really saying that much except a criticism of the board in general. Well played good sir, well played...

Edit: one of the best posts this year - hands down.

[OvertimeNO]

Harry didn't ruin anything. Overly sensitive bargs fans on the other hand...

Actually, your typical and tired - almost contrived - response is just as much part and parcel as Harry Palmer's participation, and almost everything else that has taken place in this thread, in contributing to the current state of dialectic stagnation inherent to discussions of a certain polarizing individual. If you take the time to read the thread, you'll note that I, and others, have alluded to certain inevitabilities that have indeed come to pass. If your particular response has not been explicitly forecast, it is only due to the fact that is so typical and yet so inherent to the foundation of logical entropy that is initiated - willingly and no - by many posters unwilling to examine their own preconceptions and are willing to contribute to a meaningful discussion.

And even while enjoying the atypical conversation that emerged due to a combination of factors, I lamented the fact that this board's dialectic is self-perpetuating and self-correcting, and that what some (including myself, at some points) saw as an emergent property, the board would eventually treat as a flaw, the solution to which Mr. Palmer served as the unwitting agent of delivery.

And to those who would argue that I am using contrived and unnecessarily complex rhetoric intentionally in order to obfuscate the fact that I have no original argument, and am in fact purposely sabotaging any possible continuance of a meaningful discussion by "salting the earth", so to speak, I am not responsible for your failure to comprehend the intricacy of my point, and would suggest you conduct an independent analysis on the generally inhospitable nature of online interaction with regards to dialectics.

You are my new mancrush. A guy that speaks that well that has an avatar of a teen idol is a delicious contradiction in and of itself. Plus you made sense, while not really saying that much except a criticism of the board in general. Well played good sir, well played...

Edit: one of the best posts this year - hands down.

Heh, thanks. Don't get too used to it though - I actually have very little patience for that sort of thing. Which was probably pretty evident in my post too.

[Raps_Swingman]

Man your thesaurus must've got a workout for that post.

[OvertimeNO]

Man your thesaurus must've got a workout for that post.

I stopped using thesauri years ago. They make you sound like George Dubyah.

There are some decent word salad generators online if you're willing to waste enough of your life to search for them.

/thread