Jordan and Pippen Plus/Minus Numbers in the 90s

[trex_8063]

I clipped the graphs just to save page space, though will comment on one of them.....

I was going to make this post a while back but sadly I got baited into a suspension by one of the usual suspects. I see these same usual suspects have come to ruin this thread...hardly surprising.

...

Please allow me to once again join the chorus of thank yous for all the work you've put in to bringing these numbers to light. Fantastic work! Also, I love your site.


My goal with this post is to address the narrative that Bulls only started winning titles once the supporting cast turned into a star-level supporting cast, usually corroborated by the 94 team's success. I've argued in many places that this is wrong, or at least incomplete due to a) ongoing development of Scottie and Horace, and b) Bulls acquiring better supporting players. Let's use squared's data to test this hypothesis.

Yeah, I mean thought it was pretty well-established/well-acknowledged that his supporting cast during the first 3peat was "good", but top-heavy. You have Pippen/Grant as 2nd/3rd-best players [which is pretty awesome], but then not good [even kinda weak some years] from 4th-12th on the roster.

wrt the 2nd 3peat.....
Those were outstanding supporting casts, at least in '96 and to a slightly lesser degree in '97 (though several wheels fell off the bus in '98, mostly with injuries to Pippen, Longley, Kerr, then Rodman [who was into decline] going a bit toxic in playoffs), and certainly an upgrade from what Jordan had in the 1st 3peat. I'd posted at length in the past about the supporting cast in '96.
While I think the Pippen/Rodman combo may have been [overall] marginally weaker than Pippen/Grant (though I'm kinda higher than some on Horace Grant), it was the extended cast that got so much better, as you imply.

For instance, the '96 squad had the 6MOY Toni Kukoc (and he was a valid choice). And assuming Toni is indeed the "6th Man" of this team, they had [far and away, imo] the best 7th-man in the league in Steve Kerr (who actually was 9th in 6MOY shares that year). They had at least a couple other fair/OK(ish) players off the bench (Buechler, Brown), too.
And I personally think Luc Longley was a small upgrade from Bill Cartwright (at least Cartwright by '92 and after).
And [arguably anyway] Ron Harper may have been a marginal upgrade from Paxson/Armstrong [whoever was starting, depending on year]. He lacks the shooting/scoring of either of them, but maintains the low-mistake/excellent turnover economy, with decidedly BETTER defense than Paxson and especially Armstrong [who was actually fairly bad defensively]; and little better rebounding, fwiw.

Those were really good casts for a couple years.


Regarding the improvement in '94......
That is especially the case coming directly off of '93 [as adjacent year comparison], which was a down year for both Pippen and Grant (whereas '94 is arguable as the peak season for both of them).

[Heej]

I clipped the graphs just to save page space, though will comment on one of them.....

I was going to make this post a while back but sadly I got baited into a suspension by one of the usual suspects. I see these same usual suspects have come to ruin this thread...hardly surprising.

...

Please allow me to once again join the chorus of thank yous for all the work you've put in to bringing these numbers to light. Fantastic work! Also, I love your site.


My goal with this post is to address the narrative that Bulls only started winning titles once the supporting cast turned into a star-level supporting cast, usually corroborated by the 94 team's success. I've argued in many places that this is wrong, or at least incomplete due to a) ongoing development of Scottie and Horace, and b) Bulls acquiring better supporting players. Let's use squared's data to test this hypothesis.

Yeah, I mean thought it was pretty well-established/well-acknowledged that his supporting cast during the first 3peat was "good", but top-heavy. You have Pippen/Grant as 2nd/3rd-best players [which is pretty awesome], but then not good [even kinda weak some years] from 4th-12th on the roster.

wrt the 2nd 3peat.....
Those were outstanding supporting casts, at least in '96 and to a slightly lesser degree in '97 (though several wheels fell off the bus in '98, mostly with injuries to Pippen, Longley, Kerr, then Rodman [who was into decline] going a bit toxic in playoffs), and certainly an upgrade from what Jordan had in the 1st 3peat. I'd posted at length in the past about the supporting cast in '96.
While I think the Pippen/Rodman combo may have been [overall] marginally weaker than Pippen/Grant (though I'm kinda higher than some on Horace Grant), it was the extended cast that got so much better, as you imply.

For instance, the '96 squad had the 6MOY Toni Kukoc (and he was a valid choice). And assuming Toni is indeed the "6th Man" of this team, they had [far and away, imo] the best 7th-man in the league in Steve Kerr (who actually was 9th in 6MOY shares that year). They had at least a couple other fair/OK(ish) players off the bench (Buechler, Brown), too.
And I personally think Luc Longley was a small upgrade from Bill Cartwright (at least Cartwright by '92 and after).
And [arguably anyway] Ron Harper may have been a marginal upgrade from Paxson/Armstrong [whoever was starting, depending on year]. He lacks the shooting/scoring of either of them, but maintains the low-mistake/excellent turnover economy, with decidedly BETTER defense than Paxson and especially Armstrong [who was actually fairly bad defensively]; and little better rebounding, fwiw.

Those were really good casts for a couple years.


Regarding the improvement in '94......
That is especially the case coming directly off of '93 [as adjacent year comparison], which was a down year for both Pippen and Grant (whereas '94 is arguable as the peak season for both of them).

Small nitpick but as far as 4th options go BJ Armstrong was a certified killer for the first 3peat bulls despite the lackluster defense. Certainly would take him over any of the 4th options on opposing finalists teams. I'd def say 5-12 were mid for the Bulls but when you have fairly good injury health like they did, going into the playoffs where you play 8 guys, or the Finals where you play 7 and trust 6, the Bulls 1-4 guys all being better than their league counterparts goes a long way when it comes to closing out a series

[eminence]

Armstrong wasn't even the 4th guy until '93.

Super Mario >>

[Djoker]

.

.

.

Ive been mostly laughing at how stupid this convo has gotten as time went on without engaging in it outside of making jokes but this holier than thou “look at what we’ve become” attitude is silly if you followed the conversation, idk what y’all wanted to happen lol

AE did come across as a complete ass in that first message to squared about saying “wish you never did this” considering how much time he put into it, squared got (rightfully) annoyed about it at first and then AE apologized for it

But then squared blew it like way out of proportion bringing cancer into it, and then it became this ridiculous argument/trial with square vs like 4 people about if AE wanted square to be cancer silenced or not or whatever it was, a mod who realistically is everyone’s fav or second fav was like “eh squared I obviously like you more than these guys but yeah ur tripping here but everyone stfu and cut this **** out” and then squared left going through his post history replacing it with periods and telling us his life story and the guys he was arguing with to get therapy for their “hatefulness” in a casual anonymous message board lol


Don’t turn it into this
“Wow I cant believe y’all done this to square forcing him off like this”
“Damn I wish the moderators didn’t let it get this far”
“What’s this place become”

Like yeah, it’s been more toxic lately since everyone gets all passionate and defensive about the stuff they believe in and every conversation just becomes more and more passive aggressive or condescending because everyone thinks this is a conglomerate of the greatest basketball minds on the internet and not just a more serious basketball forum compared to a place like ISH where it’s more casual in terms of analyzing players lol. Gets doubly worse when everyone’s over-sensitive here too (and yeah I just flat out call people an idiot lmao)


Like yeah I’ve had issues with the moderators too, (like how y’all tell me to PM and don’t respond to them smh), but Trex handled this fairly, just cuz one side has a poster that puts in more work for the good of the site, doesnt mean he gets blatant favoritism when he’s overreacting

Even as someone that doesn’t care much about historical data or really pre 2000s players in general, I appreciate the work dedication and hours he’s put into and he’s done for guys who are into that, but that does not mean any conflict involving him he must be in the right lol. (No idea what happened between him and heej on Reddit but heej is chill outside of the forum)

Like these responses are just so fake lol say it how it is, y’all loved his work and his posts and are annoyed he got into an argument with people 2/3 of y’all don’t vibe with and now that he’s gone y’all are annoyed about it, it is what it is.

If y’all genuinely thought what was happening was messed up y’all would have spoken up when it was happening not after the fact.

You didn't get my point. If someone tells you they are offended, you just apologize and everyone moves on. That's it!

My post is fake because I'm sad that a great contributor was forced out? No. I appreciate contributions from people I don't "vibe with". If say you or homecourtloss left the boards, I'd honestly feel like we lost a valuable poster and feel the same. Just cuz I don't always agree with someone doesn't mean I don't appreciate their posts.

Anyways this is the last I'll say on this.

[CzBoobie]

You didn't get my point. If someone tells you they are offended, you just apologize and everyone moves on. That's it!

My post is fake because I'm sad that a great contributor was forced out? No. I appreciate contributions from people I don't "vibe with". If say you or homecourtloss left the boards, I'd honestly feel like we lost a valuable poster and feel the same. Just cuz I don't always agree with someone doesn't mean I don't appreciate their posts.

Anyways this is the last I'll say on this.

Well, thats exactly what happened...a year ago only to be brought up by Squared again in completely different light. Then he realized he overplayed his hand a little. No one was forced out, that was his decision.

[trex_8063]

Small nitpick but as far as 4th options go BJ Armstrong was a certified killer for the first 3peat bulls despite the lackluster defense. Certainly would take him over any of the 4th options on opposing finalists teams. I'd def say 5-12 were mid for the Bulls but when you have fairly good injury health like they did, going into the playoffs where you play 8 guys, or the Finals where you play 7 and trust 6, the Bulls 1-4 guys all being better than their league counterparts goes a long way when it comes to closing out a series

As 4th-option scorer, sure, he's decent. As 4th-best player (overall quality being what I was speaking to)..........he's not special (**certainly not in '91 or '92, anyway).

**Speaking of which, [semantics, but...] I generally would not agree that he was a "certified killer" as a 4th option scorer; not until '93. He was basically league-avg efficiency in '91 and '92 [slightly below in '91, slightly above in '92] on completely mediocre usage, and while playing <23 mpg both years.

[Heej]

Small nitpick but as far as 4th options go BJ Armstrong was a certified killer for the first 3peat bulls despite the lackluster defense. Certainly would take him over any of the 4th options on opposing finalists teams. I'd def say 5-12 were mid for the Bulls but when you have fairly good injury health like they did, going into the playoffs where you play 8 guys, or the Finals where you play 7 and trust 6, the Bulls 1-4 guys all being better than their league counterparts goes a long way when it comes to closing out a series

As 4th-option scorer, sure, he's decent. As 4th-best player (overall quality being what I was speaking to)..........he's not special (**certainly not in '91 or '92, anyway).

**Speaking of which, [semantics, but...] I generally would not agree that he was a "certified killer" as a 4th option scorer; not until '93. He was basically league-avg efficiency in '91 and '92 [slightly below in '91, slightly above in '92] on completely mediocre usage, and while playing <23 mpg both years.

Fair enough, it's been a while since I watched those early 90s playoff games so I could've VERY easily fallen into the casual trap of giving a guy more swag points than what they were worth, esp considering defense. I always saw him as a reliable secondary playmaker that took advantage of defenses over shifting on swings.

[Owly]

I clipped the graphs just to save page space, though will comment on one of them.....

I was going to make this post a while back but sadly I got baited into a suspension by one of the usual suspects. I see these same usual suspects have come to ruin this thread...hardly surprising.


Please allow me to once again join the chorus of thank yous for all the work you've put in to bringing these numbers to light. Fantastic work! Also, I love your site.


My goal with this post is to address the narrative that Bulls only started winning titles once the supporting cast turned into a star-level supporting cast, usually corroborated by the 94 team's success. I've argued in many places that this is wrong, or at least incomplete due to a) ongoing development of Scottie and Horace, and b) Bulls acquiring better supporting players. Let's use squared's data to test this hypothesis.

Yeah, I mean thought it was pretty well-established/well-acknowledged that his supporting cast during the first 3peat was "good", but top-heavy. You have Pippen/Grant as 2nd/3rd-best players [which is pretty awesome], but then not good [even kinda weak some years] from 4th-12th on the roster.

wrt the 2nd 3peat.....
Those were outstanding supporting casts, at least in '96 and to a slightly lesser degree in '97 (though several wheels fell off the bus in '98, mostly with injuries to Pippen, Longley, Kerr, then Rodman [who was into decline] going a bit toxic in playoffs), and certainly an upgrade from what Jordan had in the 1st 3peat. I'd posted at length in the past about the supporting cast in '96.
While I think the Pippen/Rodman combo may have been [overall] marginally weaker than Pippen/Grant (though I'm kinda higher than some on Horace Grant), it was the extended cast that got so much better, as you imply.

For instance, the '96 squad had the 6MOY Toni Kukoc (and he was a valid choice). And assuming Toni is indeed the "6th Man" of this team, they had [far and away, imo] the best 7th-man in the league in Steve Kerr (who actually was 9th in 6MOY shares that year). They had at least a couple other fair/OK(ish) players off the bench (Buechler, Brown), too.
And I personally think Luc Longley was a small upgrade from Bill Cartwright (at least Cartwright by '92 and after).
And [arguably anyway] Ron Harper may have been a marginal upgrade from Paxson/Armstrong [whoever was starting, depending on year]. He lacks the shooting/scoring of either of them, but maintains the low-mistake/excellent turnover economy, with decidedly BETTER defense than Paxson and especially Armstrong [who was actually fairly bad defensively]; and little better rebounding, fwiw.

Those were really good casts for a couple years.


Regarding the improvement in '94......
That is especially the case coming directly off of '93 [as adjacent year comparison], which was a down year for both Pippen and Grant (whereas '94 is arguable as the peak season for both of them).

Small nitpick but as far as 4th options go BJ Armstrong was a certified killer for the first 3peat bulls despite the lackluster defense. Certainly would take him over any of the 4th options on opposing finalists teams. I'd def say 5-12 were mid for the Bulls but when you have fairly good injury health like they did, going into the playoffs where you play 8 guys, or the Finals where you play 7 and trust 6, the Bulls 1-4 guys all being better than their league counterparts goes a long way when it comes to closing out a series

Armstrong was a great shooter. Arguably MJ will eat into some teammates box production versus what they might get elsewhere (probably why Paxman started through '92, very good at a very doing a limited amount of things well).

And it will depend what one means by "option" but the most pertinent thing would be player goodness

trusting box-side measures you're probably looking at
'91 Johnson, Worthy, Divac, Perkins (Scott, Green possible?)
'92 Drexler, Porter, Williams, Ainge/Kersey
'93 Barkley ... let's say KJ though his box is down this year, Ceballos (but lesser minutes, weak D), Majerle (but more minutes, better D so perhaps flip), (Dumas?).

I'm not sure I buy into certainty that Armstrong was better than whomever one lists fourth for each team.

[Heej]

I clipped the graphs just to save page space, though will comment on one of them.....




Yeah, I mean thought it was pretty well-established/well-acknowledged that his supporting cast during the first 3peat was "good", but top-heavy. You have Pippen/Grant as 2nd/3rd-best players [which is pretty awesome], but then not good [even kinda weak some years] from 4th-12th on the roster.

wrt the 2nd 3peat.....
Those were outstanding supporting casts, at least in '96 and to a slightly lesser degree in '97 (though several wheels fell off the bus in '98, mostly with injuries to Pippen, Longley, Kerr, then Rodman [who was into decline] going a bit toxic in playoffs), and certainly an upgrade from what Jordan had in the 1st 3peat. I'd posted at length in the past about the supporting cast in '96.
While I think the Pippen/Rodman combo may have been [overall] marginally weaker than Pippen/Grant (though I'm kinda higher than some on Horace Grant), it was the extended cast that got so much better, as you imply.

For instance, the '96 squad had the 6MOY Toni Kukoc (and he was a valid choice). And assuming Toni is indeed the "6th Man" of this team, they had [far and away, imo] the best 7th-man in the league in Steve Kerr (who actually was 9th in 6MOY shares that year). They had at least a couple other fair/OK(ish) players off the bench (Buechler, Brown), too.
And I personally think Luc Longley was a small upgrade from Bill Cartwright (at least Cartwright by '92 and after).
And [arguably anyway] Ron Harper may have been a marginal upgrade from Paxson/Armstrong [whoever was starting, depending on year]. He lacks the shooting/scoring of either of them, but maintains the low-mistake/excellent turnover economy, with decidedly BETTER defense than Paxson and especially Armstrong [who was actually fairly bad defensively]; and little better rebounding, fwiw.

Those were really good casts for a couple years.


Regarding the improvement in '94......
That is especially the case coming directly off of '93 [as adjacent year comparison], which was a down year for both Pippen and Grant (whereas '94 is arguable as the peak season for both of them).

Small nitpick but as far as 4th options go BJ Armstrong was a certified killer for the first 3peat bulls despite the lackluster defense. Certainly would take him over any of the 4th options on opposing finalists teams. I'd def say 5-12 were mid for the Bulls but when you have fairly good injury health like they did, going into the playoffs where you play 8 guys, or the Finals where you play 7 and trust 6, the Bulls 1-4 guys all being better than their league counterparts goes a long way when it comes to closing out a series

Armstrong was a great shooter. Arguably MJ will eat into some teammates box production versus what they might get elsewhere (probably why Paxman started through '92, very good at a very doing a limited amount of things well).

And it will depend what one means by "option" but the most pertinent thing would be player goodness

trusting box-side measures you're probably looking at
'91 Johnson, Worthy, Divac, Perkins (Scott, Green possible?)
'92 Drexler, Porter, Williams, Ainge/Kersey
'93 Barkley ... let's say KJ though his box is down this year, Ceballos (but lesser minutes, weak D), Majerle (but more minutes, better D so perhaps flip), (Dumas?).

I'm not sure I buy into certainty that Armstrong was better than whomever one lists fourth for each team.

Haha yea for sure it's not cut and dry. I just remember watching series' and coming away very impressed with his game then and wondering why people never mentioned him. It's definitely safe to say top 4 isn't quite the wash for the bulls that the top 3 was. But I mean, BJ wasn't a slouch by any means. I do believe I likely didn't factor in his defense enough when I was watching back then lol.

[MyUniBroDavis]

You didn't get my point. If someone tells you they are offended, you just apologize and everyone moves on. That's it!

My post is fake because I'm sad that a great contributor was forced out? No. I appreciate contributions from people I don't "vibe with". If say you or homecourtloss left the boards, I'd honestly feel like we lost a valuable poster and feel the same. Just cuz I don't always agree with someone doesn't mean I don't appreciate their posts.

Anyways this is the last I'll say on this.

Well, thats exactly what happened...a year ago only to be brought up by Squared again in completely different light. Then he realized he overplayed his hand a little. No one was forced out, that was his decision.

Dude how did the mods let u get the name boobie lmfao

[lessthanjake]

I think it’s fairly obvious that some people here are just relatively young people that just approach their interactions through a very self-focused lens that lacks much empathy. I think it’s something people often develop more with age, as they see themselves and those around them in life have more and more things happen that really scream for empathy. As it relates to this thread, if you think someone has overreacted to something that you or one of your buddies has said, but you are well aware that that overreaction is in significant part tied to actually significant real-world issues that one would reasonably expect might lead to someone being very sensitive in general, then a mature reaction to that is to just leave it be. It is not a mature reaction to pile on over and over in a fairly nasty and sarcastic way. It is fine for the person that is the target of a perceived overreaction to calmly point out why they think that that’s the case. I’m not suggesting one can’t explain one’s self in a public forum. But people piling on over and over in a nasty and sarcastic way in that sort of situation obviously just crosses the line to be needlessly cruel and deeply unpleasant. And that’s especially the case if you really believe that the underlying issue is based on a clear overreaction—if that’s the case, then you should be able to trust that someone calmly pointing out why that’s the case would be all that is necessary as a defense. A lot of posters here are very obviously young and immature, so I think they’ll learn this sort of thing with time. But the bottom line is that if you conduct yourself in a manner where all you care about is “winning” an argument you are a part of and doing so as ruthlessly as possible, then you will end up being a deeply unpleasant person that rubs a lot of people the wrong way in a pretty profound manner.

It’d be a shame to lose a poster that has done such great work as a result of this sort of thing. But obviously there’s more underlying this than just the discussion in this thread, so it may well be a good personal choice. That said, I very much hope that Squared will still continue doing the work that we have found so helpful and interesting. It is work that does not require interacting with people here, and I think it is definitely extremely valuable to a lot of people. So I hope that that impressive work can continue, since it is separate from the endeavor of posting on this forum, and I’d hazard to say is more valuable work than posting on these forums virtually ever is.

[CzBoobie]

Dude how did the mods let u get the name boobie lmfao

Man, once upon a time there was an NBA player going by that name.

[Heej]

I think it’s fairly obvious that some people here are just relatively young people that just approach their interactions through a very self-focused lens that lacks much empathy. I think it’s something people often develop more with age, as they see themselves and those around them in life have more and more things happen that really scream for empathy. As it relates to this thread, if you think someone has overreacted to something that you or one of your buddies has said, but you are well aware that that overreaction is in significant part tied to actually significant real-world issues that one would reasonably expect might lead to someone being very sensitive in general, then a mature reaction to that is to just leave it be. It is not a mature reaction to pile on over and over in a fairly nasty and sarcastic way. It is fine for the person that is the target of a perceived overreaction to calmly point out why they think that that’s the case. I’m not suggesting one can’t explain one’s self in a public forum. But people piling on over and over in a nasty and sarcastic way in that sort of situation obviously just crosses the line to be needlessly cruel and deeply unpleasant. And that’s especially the case if you really believe that the underlying issue is based on a clear overreaction—if that’s the case, then you should be able to trust that someone calmly pointing out why that’s the case would be all that is necessary as a defense. A lot of posters here are very obviously young and immature, so I think they’ll learn this sort of thing with time. But the bottom line is that if you conduct yourself in a manner where all you care about is “winning” an argument you are a part of and doing so as ruthlessly as possible, then you will end up being a deeply unpleasant person that rubs a lot of people the wrong way in a pretty profound manner.

It’d be a shame to lose a poster that has done such great work as a result of this sort of thing. But obviously there’s more underlying this than just the discussion in this thread, so it may well be a good personal choice. That said, I very much hope that Squared will still continue doing the work that we have found so helpful and interesting. It is work that does not require interacting with people here, and I think it is definitely extremely valuable to a lot of people. So I hope that that impressive work can continue, since it is separate from the endeavor of posting on this forum, and I’d hazard to say is more valuable work than posting on these forums virtually ever is.

Ironic of you to use the "we're all grown ass adults here" argument while twisting and contorting to excuse someone you like because it favors your agenda while they act like a childish paranoid schizophrenic. This is a basketball forum, not a kindergarten class where you can run up to your teacher and falsely claim someone's being mean to you to get them in trouble for no reason.

You can't just slander someone's name and not expect to be called out for it, then play the victim card when you do. What are we? A bunch of teenage girls? TF?

Oh and btw, every single person accused of "dogpiling" has effusively stated their praise for Squared's work. I have no idea what his beef is with me but reading what he was saying and lying on people's names, I was absolutely shocked because to me he was an all time great RealGM bro that I immensely admired and respected.

Like J Cole once said 'long live the idols, may they never become your rivals'. Cuz that was embarrassing and altogether disturbing to see one of the most respected posters in the history of this legendary website carry themselves in such a fashion.

[CzBoobie]

I think it’s fairly obvious that some people here are just relatively young people that just approach their interactions through a very self-focused lens that lacks much empathy. I think it’s something people often develop more with age, as they see themselves and those around them in life have more and more things happen that really scream for empathy. As it relates to this thread, if you think someone has overreacted to something that you or one of your buddies has said, but you are well aware that that overreaction is in significant part tied to actually significant real-world issues that one would reasonably expect might lead to someone being very sensitive in general, then a mature reaction to that is to just leave it be. It is not a mature reaction to pile on over and over in a fairly nasty and sarcastic way. It is fine for the person that is the target of a perceived overreaction to calmly point out why they think that that’s the case. I’m not suggesting one can’t explain one’s self in a public forum. But people piling on over and over in a nasty and sarcastic way in that sort of situation obviously just crosses the line to be needlessly cruel and deeply unpleasant. And that’s especially the case if you really believe that the underlying issue is based on a clear overreaction—if that’s the case, then you should be able to trust that someone calmly pointing out why that’s the case would be all that is necessary as a defense. A lot of posters here are very obviously young and immature, so I think they’ll learn this sort of thing with time. But the bottom line is that if you conduct yourself in a manner where all you care about is “winning” an argument you are a part of and doing so as ruthlessly as possible, then you will end up being a deeply unpleasant person that rubs a lot of people the wrong way in a pretty profound manner.

Thats some of the most condescending stuff I have read here. And the "lebron squad" are the passive-agressive ones around here, ok.

[Colbinii]

I think it’s fairly obvious that some people here are just relatively young people that just approach their interactions through a very self-focused lens that lacks much empathy. I think it’s something people often develop more with age, as they see themselves and those around them in life have more and more things happen that really scream for empathy. As it relates to this thread, if you think someone has overreacted to something that you or one of your buddies has said, but you are well aware that that overreaction is in significant part tied to actually significant real-world issues that one would reasonably expect might lead to someone being very sensitive in general, then a mature reaction to that is to just leave it be. It is not a mature reaction to pile on over and over in a fairly nasty and sarcastic way. It is fine for the person that is the target of a perceived overreaction to calmly point out why they think that that’s the case. I’m not suggesting one can’t explain one’s self in a public forum. But people piling on over and over in a nasty and sarcastic way in that sort of situation obviously just crosses the line to be needlessly cruel and deeply unpleasant. And that’s especially the case if you really believe that the underlying issue is based on a clear overreaction—if that’s the case, then you should be able to trust that someone calmly pointing out why that’s the case would be all that is necessary as a defense. A lot of posters here are very obviously young and immature, so I think they’ll learn this sort of thing with time. But the bottom line is that if you conduct yourself in a manner where all you care about is “winning” an argument you are a part of and doing so as ruthlessly as possible, then you will end up being a deeply unpleasant person that rubs a lot of people the wrong way in a pretty profound manner.

It’d be a shame to lose a poster that has done such great work as a result of this sort of thing. But obviously there’s more underlying this than just the discussion in this thread, so it may well be a good personal choice. That said, I very much hope that Squared will still continue doing the work that we have found so helpful and interesting. It is work that does not require interacting with people here, and I think it is definitely extremely valuable to a lot of people. So I hope that that impressive work can continue, since it is separate from the endeavor of posting on this forum, and I’d hazard to say is more valuable work than posting on these forums virtually ever is.

Empathy has been shown to be steads for adults age 18-45 and decrease in adults > 45.

[lessthanjake]

I think it’s fairly obvious that some people here are just relatively young people that just approach their interactions through a very self-focused lens that lacks much empathy. I think it’s something people often develop more with age, as they see themselves and those around them in life have more and more things happen that really scream for empathy. As it relates to this thread, if you think someone has overreacted to something that you or one of your buddies has said, but you are well aware that that overreaction is in significant part tied to actually significant real-world issues that one would reasonably expect might lead to someone being very sensitive in general, then a mature reaction to that is to just leave it be. It is not a mature reaction to pile on over and over in a fairly nasty and sarcastic way. It is fine for the person that is the target of a perceived overreaction to calmly point out why they think that that’s the case. I’m not suggesting one can’t explain one’s self in a public forum. But people piling on over and over in a nasty and sarcastic way in that sort of situation obviously just crosses the line to be needlessly cruel and deeply unpleasant. And that’s especially the case if you really believe that the underlying issue is based on a clear overreaction—if that’s the case, then you should be able to trust that someone calmly pointing out why that’s the case would be all that is necessary as a defense. A lot of posters here are very obviously young and immature, so I think they’ll learn this sort of thing with time. But the bottom line is that if you conduct yourself in a manner where all you care about is “winning” an argument you are a part of and doing so as ruthlessly as possible, then you will end up being a deeply unpleasant person that rubs a lot of people the wrong way in a pretty profound manner.

It’d be a shame to lose a poster that has done such great work as a result of this sort of thing. But obviously there’s more underlying this than just the discussion in this thread, so it may well be a good personal choice. That said, I very much hope that Squared will still continue doing the work that we have found so helpful and interesting. It is work that does not require interacting with people here, and I think it is definitely extremely valuable to a lot of people. So I hope that that impressive work can continue, since it is separate from the endeavor of posting on this forum, and I’d hazard to say is more valuable work than posting on these forums virtually ever is.

Ironic of you to use the "we're all grown ass adults here" argument while twisting and contorting to excuse someone you like because it favors your agenda while they act like a childish paranoid schizophrenic. This is a basketball forum, not a kindergarten class where you can run up to your teacher and falsely claim someone's being mean to you to get them in trouble for no reason.

You can't just slander someone's name and not expect to be called out for it, then play the victim card when you do. What are we? A bunch of teenage girls? TF?

Oh and btw, every single person accused of "dogpiling" has effusively stated their praise for Squared's work. I have no idea what his beef is with me but reading what he was saying and lying on people's names, I was absolutely shocked because to me he was an all time great RealGM bro that I immensely admired and respected.

Like J Cole once said 'long live the idols, may they never become your rivals'. Cuz that was embarrassing and altogether disturbing to see one of the most respected posters in the history of this legendary website carry themselves in such a fashion.

The point of my post really was not to say “we’re all grown ass adults here.” It was more “Let’s act with some modicum of empathy towards people when we know that their behavior that we don’t like and/or disagree with is in significant part tied to actually significant real-world issues.” And part of what I was saying is that the fact that that didn’t occur here is indicative of the fact that a lot of people here are *not* actually “grown ass adults.” The bottom line is that even if one thinks Squared was making unfair accusations or whatever, in the full context (which everyone had) it is obvious that those who chose to dogpile over and over after that point had *already* been made were acting with a lack of empathy. It’s deeply unpleasant behavior regardless of who one thinks was right about the underlying discussion. And if you or others are not able to read this and see that one’s behavior in a discussion can be wrong even if one is correct about the underlying thing being discussed, then I think that’s reflective of the issue I posted about. As I said in my post, if you conduct yourself in a manner where all you care about is “winning” an argument you are a part of and you think any method of doing that is justified because you are “right,” then you will end up being a deeply unpleasant person that rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

[lessthanjake]

I think it’s fairly obvious that some people here are just relatively young people that just approach their interactions through a very self-focused lens that lacks much empathy. I think it’s something people often develop more with age, as they see themselves and those around them in life have more and more things happen that really scream for empathy. As it relates to this thread, if you think someone has overreacted to something that you or one of your buddies has said, but you are well aware that that overreaction is in significant part tied to actually significant real-world issues that one would reasonably expect might lead to someone being very sensitive in general, then a mature reaction to that is to just leave it be. It is not a mature reaction to pile on over and over in a fairly nasty and sarcastic way. It is fine for the person that is the target of a perceived overreaction to calmly point out why they think that that’s the case. I’m not suggesting one can’t explain one’s self in a public forum. But people piling on over and over in a nasty and sarcastic way in that sort of situation obviously just crosses the line to be needlessly cruel and deeply unpleasant. And that’s especially the case if you really believe that the underlying issue is based on a clear overreaction—if that’s the case, then you should be able to trust that someone calmly pointing out why that’s the case would be all that is necessary as a defense. A lot of posters here are very obviously young and immature, so I think they’ll learn this sort of thing with time. But the bottom line is that if you conduct yourself in a manner where all you care about is “winning” an argument you are a part of and doing so as ruthlessly as possible, then you will end up being a deeply unpleasant person that rubs a lot of people the wrong way in a pretty profound manner.

It’d be a shame to lose a poster that has done such great work as a result of this sort of thing. But obviously there’s more underlying this than just the discussion in this thread, so it may well be a good personal choice. That said, I very much hope that Squared will still continue doing the work that we have found so helpful and interesting. It is work that does not require interacting with people here, and I think it is definitely extremely valuable to a lot of people. So I hope that that impressive work can continue, since it is separate from the endeavor of posting on this forum, and I’d hazard to say is more valuable work than posting on these forums virtually ever is.

Empathy has been shown to be steads for adults age 18-45 and decrease in adults > 45.

I was giving the benefit of the doubt by attributing it to young age. If this is a permanent state of being for various posters, then that’s worse. But I was allowing room for an assumption that that isn’t the case, in order to be nice/hopeful.

[Colbinii]

I think it’s fairly obvious that some people here are just relatively young people that just approach their interactions through a very self-focused lens that lacks much empathy. I think it’s something people often develop more with age, as they see themselves and those around them in life have more and more things happen that really scream for empathy. As it relates to this thread, if you think someone has overreacted to something that you or one of your buddies has said, but you are well aware that that overreaction is in significant part tied to actually significant real-world issues that one would reasonably expect might lead to someone being very sensitive in general, then a mature reaction to that is to just leave it be. It is not a mature reaction to pile on over and over in a fairly nasty and sarcastic way. It is fine for the person that is the target of a perceived overreaction to calmly point out why they think that that’s the case. I’m not suggesting one can’t explain one’s self in a public forum. But people piling on over and over in a nasty and sarcastic way in that sort of situation obviously just crosses the line to be needlessly cruel and deeply unpleasant. And that’s especially the case if you really believe that the underlying issue is based on a clear overreaction—if that’s the case, then you should be able to trust that someone calmly pointing out why that’s the case would be all that is necessary as a defense. A lot of posters here are very obviously young and immature, so I think they’ll learn this sort of thing with time. But the bottom line is that if you conduct yourself in a manner where all you care about is “winning” an argument you are a part of and doing so as ruthlessly as possible, then you will end up being a deeply unpleasant person that rubs a lot of people the wrong way in a pretty profound manner.

It’d be a shame to lose a poster that has done such great work as a result of this sort of thing. But obviously there’s more underlying this than just the discussion in this thread, so it may well be a good personal choice. That said, I very much hope that Squared will still continue doing the work that we have found so helpful and interesting. It is work that does not require interacting with people here, and I think it is definitely extremely valuable to a lot of people. So I hope that that impressive work can continue, since it is separate from the endeavor of posting on this forum, and I’d hazard to say is more valuable work than posting on these forums virtually ever is.

Empathy has been shown to be steads for adults age 18-45 and decrease in adults > 45.

I was giving the benefit of the doubt by attributing it to young age. If this is a permanent state of being for various posters, then that’s worse. But I was allowing room for an assumption that that isn’t the case, in order to be nice/hopeful.

That is so empathetic of you

[lessthanjake]

Empathy has been shown to be steads for adults age 18-45 and decrease in adults > 45.

I was giving the benefit of the doubt by attributing it to young age. If this is a permanent state of being for various posters, then that’s worse. But I was allowing room for an assumption that that isn’t the case, in order to be nice/hopeful.

That is so empathetic of you

I agree—it was! Thanks for pointing out me practicing what I preach!

[Colbinii]

I was giving the benefit of the doubt by attributing it to young age. If this is a permanent state of being for various posters, then that’s worse. But I was allowing room for an assumption that that isn’t the case, in order to be nice/hopeful.

That is so empathetic of you

I agree—it was! Thanks for pointing out me practicing what I preach!

No problem preacher! Just stay away from the kids!