Matt Harpring video

[jozef]

His post game is pretty good. He can shoot right after clearing some space with pivot turn and he can muscle for layup. But when did he get low post touch?
His jumper was on but got off after Toronto game.

And thanks for new analyst facts, ColdBlue.

[ColdBlue]

^ Bring something to the table first, kid. Then you might deserve a counter.

[fivas14]

Harp sucks, he should NEVER be in the game except for garbage time.

[sodapop]

So calling people a slow parrot makes you a slow parrot?

Just treating you like you treat others. Isn't that how you want to be talked to? At a point smack gets old, and if you can only put people on the defensive, your lack of a reasonable argument shows.

Missed layups the last five games
Dec 20 @ CHI
Okur-2, Williams-2, AK-1, Millsap-1, Knight-1
Dec 19 @ DET
Millsap-2, Brewer-2, AK-2, Williams-2, Price-1, Miles-1, Knight-1, Okur-1
Dec 17 @ NJN
Okur-1, Korver-1
Dec 15 @ BOS
Millsap-4, Harpring-1, Brewer-1, AK-1
Dec 13 vs. ORL
Okur-4, Almond-3, Millsap-3

Now who wants crackers?

[ColdBlue]

So calling people a slow parrot makes you a slow parrot?

Just treating you like you treat others. Isn't that how you want to be talked to? At a point smack gets old, and if you can only put people on the defensive, your lack of a reasonable argument shows.

I need a reasonable argument to reply to before you can accuse me of being unreasonable. When the discussion is one big ole pile of ****, all there is left to do is fling it. It doesn't matter if you shower the turd with candy sprinkles, it's still a turd.

Look, I know you have this golden moral self perspective that you are 'above' it all, standing on a imaginary pedistal, wiping your hands clean of **** that you are flinging around, but you can't honestly admit that you think Harp is playing good ball.

The bottom line is Harp is playing poorly. I bet he would be the first to admit it. Sloan knows it, and is only playing him limited minutes. I don't honestly know if Harp is going to be able to come back and contribute to this team. I hope he can come back. He brings another dimmension to this team if he could only catch the damned ball.

[jozef]

I brought about 5 different stats, I brought videosnapshots of foul on Harpring's layup.

All what you ColdBlue brought could be summed:

Only if you watch it late night and in the privacy of your own bedroom.
He has integrity, which you have lost.
It's really pathetic to see an ignorant loudmouth think that they are fooling everyone else.
Ridicule should be used as a deterrent for the absurd.
Giving the onus to those to disprove your empty claims is the third argumentative fallacy you have brought up in this thread.
The last vestige of a hypocritical slow parrot ass is to feign neutrality as moral high-ground.
It doesn't matter if you shower the turd with candy sprinkles, it's still a turd.

Parrot-like bla-bla-bla...

First damn thing you dare to bring in is the last sentence of the last post:

"...if he could only catch the damned ball."

And that's a bull. He can catch the ball as well as anybody.

[ColdBlue]

I brought about 5 different stats, I brought videosnapshots of foul on Harpring's layup.

It's all worthless nonsense swirling around a misty premise about Harprings excellence. If you expect me to actually debate you, then you need to have premise and your stats need to correlate. So far you are just a jumbled mess of nothing, but are claiming that you are super stat stud of the week. You have used 2 argumentative fallacies in setting up whatever premise (which is more of a house of cards) as well as are ignoring onus. Your stats are circumstantial and selective. Your video snapshots show one instance, and the call is sometimes there and sometimes not. It's the NBA... get used to it.

Get a premise, support it, or GTFO. Your random and juvenile methodology of debate is not worth engaging in. This isn't rocket science, it's internet communication 101.

First damn thing you dare to bring in is the last sentence of the last post:

"...if he could only catch the damned ball."

And that's a bull. He can catch the ball as well as anybody

First thing, what I said above... wasn't "bringing it". What I said is called sarcasm. It's not a premise, it's not meant to be debated.

Wait... did you seriously think I was making a claim that Harp can't catch the ball? Unreal.

Get a premise, support it, or GTFO.... you little super stat stud of the week.

[sodapop]

then you need to have premise and your stats need to correlate

He had a good premise, that Harpring was not as bad as people say, he took the time to make a video. When attacked he supported it by statistics. Even the layup myth was debunked. The link he posted shows that Harpring scores more than the man he is covering. He also blocks more than his opponent. A good rebounder he also draws more free throws than his opponent and he has less turnovers than his opponent. A year or two away from retirement and he still has better all around numbers than most of the team. He's also the toughest player. Five minutes of your time looking at the link he provided would of proved his point.

Can you prove him wrong? Or are you going to just attack him? One shows knowledge, the other a lack of it.

[ColdBlue]

then you need to have premise and your stats need to correlate

He had a good premise, that Harpring was not as bad as people say

I would hardly call a subjective and generalized intention an actual premise. Let alone calling it good. Nice try...

Can you prove him wrong?

How can I prove that he is wrong about something as general and vague as "not as bad as people say"?

That is like you asking me to prove that Yanni sucks. You would bring up how much money he has made, his huge concerts, and multiple albums, and say prove that he sucks. It's subjective and circumstantial.

The link he posted shows that Harpring scores more than the man he is covering. He also blocks more than his opponent. A good rebounder he also draws more free throws than his opponent and he has less turnovers than his opponent.

Yes, but it's all circumstantial stats based on limited play. It's not really representative of anything until Harp gets more minutes. I also think that 82games hasn't been updated since the one good game he had.

He's also the toughest player.

Wrong again, I brought up Harp's toughness on the original thread, not josef, not you.

Is that it? A good premise supported by relevant facts... heh more like a house of cards.

[sodapop]

Yes, but it's all circumstantial stats based on limited play. It's not really representative of anything until Harp gets more minutes.

If you dismiss his good stats as circumstantial based on limited play, then are all opinions of Harpring this year based on too few minutes?

How can I prove that he is wrong about something as general and vague as "not as bad as people say"?

He said more than that. reducing his several posts to one line is an injustice to him.

"I would hardly call a subjective and generalized intention an actual premise."

Screen shots, videos and statistics are more substantial than a generalized intention of avoiding the discussion of basketball, and trying to discredit a person.

[ColdBlue]

Yes, but it's all circumstantial stats based on limited play. It's not really representative of anything until Harp gets more minutes.

If you dismiss his good stats as circumstantial based on limited play, then are all opinions of Harpring this year based on too few minutes?

Definitely. I hope Harp can get it together... we need him.

He said more than that. reducing his several posts to one line is an injustice to him.

You were the one putting words into his mouth. The injustice is yours.

Screen shots, videos and statistics are more substantial than a generalized intention of avoiding the discussion of basketball, and trying to discredit a person.

This is where I disagree. I think irrelevant nonsense disguised as factual is a weasel's methodology. It's worse than an obvious biased "HARP SUCKS!1!". He is pretending, and he is doing it poorly but with great conviction. This is the lowest of the low. You are defending him, which makes you just as bad.

[sodapop]

If you dismiss his good stats as circumstantial based on limited play, then are all opinions of Harpring this year based on too few minutes?

Definitely.

Then your purpose for arguing is to run someone down?

[ColdBlue]

Ahh... I see. Suddenly.... it's no longer about jozef, but now it's about me and my motivations? How can this be? What changed? Why would sodapup stop one course of action, and turn and point the finger right at me?

The last vestige of a loser, point the finger at someone else when all else fails.

You cannot defend jozef, so now you point the finger at me, from your high and mighty imaginary pedistal of golden and pure neutrality. Nice work. Maybe you should just let jozef speak for himself.

Besides, I've already given you my motivation:

Ridicule is a deterrent for the absurd. Point the finger all day. I've already admitted my motivations. I'm done with you.

[jozef]

Wait... did you seriously think I was making a claim that Harp can't catch the ball?

It was the only issue worth of discussing you ever brought in this topic. Otherwise you swim in ocean of vague statements. If you want prove me wrong then take my arguement and break it with some facts. That's what I am interested in. If you could not do it then you are limited to talking about my inferiority. I do not care.

[sodapop]

Ahh... I see. Suddenly.... it's no longer about jozef, but now it's about me and my motivations?

The topic of discussion for everyone else was Harpring and basketball.

[ColdBlue]

Wait... did you seriously think I was making a claim that Harp can't catch the ball?

It was the only issue worth of discussing you ever brought in this topic. Otherwise you swim in ocean of vague statements. If you want prove me wrong then take my arguement and break it with some facts. That's what I am interested in. If you could not do it then you are limited to talking about my inferiority. I do not care.

I'm not trying to break your argument. You don't have an argument to break. Your pictures and stats are not objective. Besides, the onus of proof is not on people to break your argument, the onus is on you to provide a legitimate one. Do you understand this, or is it still vague?

Referencing 82 games is not proof of anything. Harp hasn't played enough minutes for those numbers to correspond to anything conclusive. Is this a vague statement? Do you understand it?

This is basic methodology... otherwise the discussion has no bounds, no validity, and anything goes. It turns into a juvenile argument found on the playgrounds over who's dad is tougher. Aren't you sick of getting into pointless arguments with no hope of resolution?

The reason I'm giving you a hard time is because you are failing to be objective. It's nothing personal, but if you continue arguing subjectively, then I will fling **** your direction.

On the other hand, if you objectively provide an argument that is solid, I would be more than happy to concur. I like my fellow Jazz fans to be legit.

[sodapop]

Never defending a position paints a better picture than a word a day calendar.

[freakazoid]

Matt Harping = Most valuble Jazz player

Jerry loves him, and says a picture can say a thousand Matt words.