MVP Watch Part VI

[big123]

-= original quote snipped =-



That answer is ridiculous. You would rather have a combined 62 games than a combined 155 games.

Yes, I would. 62 games out of 82 is great if your 46-15 during that span.

[eatyourchildren]

-= original quote snipped =-



You can't just ask this question without discussing situation. If, for example, we keep Paul's level of play from last year, Tyson Chandler goes down after 35 games and the Hornets get Pau Gasol for 25-27 games, however many he ended up playing, then I don't mind the poor health, really.

You're shirking the question, because you think you're guessing at what my point is, and you don't know what it is:


Would you rather have Peja play 77 instead of 13 games, and David West 76 instead of 52 games

or

CP's improvement?[/b]

[eatyourchildren]

-= original quote snipped =-



Yes, I would. 62 games out of 82 is great if your 46-15 during that span.

And that's better than having your frontcourt intact for close to 80 games. Yeah, sure.

[SA37]

-= original quote snipped =-



So who don't we credit West, Tyson, Pargo for getting better, why are all these things held against Bryant.

Who said they didn't get better? Although, West and Chandler are essentially playing at the same level as they did last year, at least statistically.

They're averaging a couple more ppg each, but outside of that the numbers are the same.

The person who has had the biggest increase statistically is Paul.

[SA37]

-= original quote snipped =-



You're shirking the question, because you think you're guessing at what my point is, and you don't know what it is:


Would you rather have Peja play 77 instead of 13 games, and David West 76 instead of 52 games

or

CP's improvement?[/b]

I don't see how this is really relevant.

It is the equivalent of me saying, would you rather have Kobe's non-statistical improvements or have Andrew Bynum play 13 games and Lamar Odom play 52 games?

[eatyourchildren]

-= original quote snipped =-



Without a context the question is not answerable.

It is answerable, because we're just comparing 06-07 Hornets to 07-08 Hornets and you're trying to dodge a very simple question.

Would you rather have:
A. Health (Peja playing 64 more games and West playing 16 more games)
or
B. CP's improvement

We'll get to the relevancy of this later. I'll explain it to you and everyone else.

[BringYoAGame]

Something to consider:

Cobra gets credited for turning around that franchise on the court and off, and deservedly so. He brought players in before the preseason practices so they could get of to a head start. He set in a take no prisoners attitude that has them blowing out teams by 20 and 30 points and not taking a night off. He has other vets clammoring to join the Ceatles so they can be a part of the action. We'll call that the Yang.

Well, Mamba turned the Lakers around by scaring the bejeezus out of the ownership, calling out developing players in public, and basically disrupting the team from top to bottom. Do the Lakers trade for Gasol if he doesn't put a gun to their head? Does Bynum feel as motivated to blow up before he got called out. He probably didn't intend it, but what he did off the court has as much to do with the Lakers being successful THIS year than what he did on the court. We'll call that the Yin.

Since it alienated a bunch of people, myself included, I'm not sure you can really applaud Kobe's off-court antics. But there's little doubt they are where they are because of it. Is that value? Does it count?

[SA37]

-= original quote snipped =-



It is answerable, because we're just comparing 06-07 Hornets to 07-08 Hornets and you're trying to dodge a very simple question.

Would you rather have:
A. Health (Peja playing 64 more games and West playing 16 more games)
or
B. CP's improvement

We'll get to the relevancy of this later. I'll explain it to you and everyone else.

Right, but Paul was also injured that season. So, if he plays in 80 games, say, versus 64 (assuming they're at the level he played at this year) it makes a difference, not just with the more games played but the games they played during the course of the season. I mean, you're possibly talking about a 10-15 win differential just based on Paul playing more and better throughout the season. (A 10-win improvement would have given the Hornets 49 wins that year, despite all the injuries.)

[eatyourchildren]

-= original quote snipped =-



Right, but Paul was also injured that season. So, if he plays in 80 games, say, versus 64 (assuming they're at the level he played at this year) it makes a difference, not just with the more games played but the games they played during the course of the season. I mean, you're possibly talking about a 10-15 win differential just based on Paul playing more and better throughout the season. (A 10-win improvement would have given the Hornets 49 wins that year, despite all the injuries.)

Would you rather have:
A. Health (Peja playing 64 more games and West playing 16 more games; assume Paul plays 82 games both seasons)
or
B. CP's improvement

[big123]

-= original quote snipped =-



And that's better than having your frontcourt intact for close to 80 games. Yeah, sure.

Well considering, in this situation, the Lakers still beat out the Hornets, yeah.

The 62 games got the job done, did it not?

It just proves with a 46-15 record with either of them in the lineup, that alone had a bigger impact than West/Chandler for 80 games. That's all I'm saying.

Of course the Lakers would of ptobably blown out the Hornets if either one played all year and especially if both played. But they didn't have to for the Lakwers to still hold the #1 seed.

[SA37]

-= original quote snipped =-



Would you rather have:
A. Health (Peja playing 64 more games and West playing 16 more games; assume Paul plays 82 games both seasons)
or
B. CP's improvement

Just to see where this goes...I suppose I'd take the health, although its close because Paul's improvements plus 18 more games played probably gets the Hornets close to 50 wins.

[eatyourchildren]

-= original quote snipped =-



Well considering, in this situation, the Lakers still beat out the Hornets, yeah.

The 62 games got the job done, did it not?

It just proves with a 46-15 record with either of them in the lineup, that alone had a bigger impact than West/Chandler for 80 games. That's all I'm saying.

Of course the Lakers would of ptobably blown out the Hornets if either one played all year and especially if both played. But they didn't have to for the Lakwers to still hold the #1 seed.

It logically follows that you think Pau alone in a short duration is better than West+Chandler in a longer duration. I don't even think NO fans would agree with you on that.

[SA37]

Do the Lakers trade for Gasol if he doesn't put a gun to their head?

No. I can't fathom any management team would want to acquire an 18-9 post player for Kwame Brown and garbage unless their star player scared them into it...

[big123]

-= original quote snipped =-


big123 gets my vote for dumbest poster on realgm.

Why, because Gasol/Bynum had a bigger impact in 62 games then West/Chandler for 80 games?

Why, because having the 2nd seed healthy is better than the 1st with some injuries?

GTFO.

[eatyourchildren]

-= original quote snipped =-



Just to see where this goes...I suppose I'd take the health, although its close because Paul's improvements plus 18 more games played probably gets the Hornets close to 50 wins.

Finally. Good.


Your original contention was that Paul's improvement alone was a more significant factor to the Hornets' success this year than the increase in health was to the Hornets' success.

But if you'd choose the increase in health over the increase in Paul's improvement, how can that be the more significant factor if you'd rather have the health of CP's teammates over CP's improvement.

To SA37: Health > CP's improvement, but CP's improvement > Health for Hornet's succees


Logically inconsistent.

[eatyourchildren]

-= original quote snipped =-



Why, because Gasol/Bynum had a bigger impact in 62 games then West/Chandler for 80 games?

Why, because having the 2nd seed healthy is better than the 1st with some injuries?

GTFO.

Kobe Bryant was the one constant through 82 games. GTFO.

[tracey_nice]

-= original quote snipped =-



Why, because Gasol/Bynum had a bigger impact in 62 games then West/Chandler for 80 games?

Why, because having the 2nd seed healthy is better than the 1st with some injuries?

GTFO.

I stand by what I said unless you admit your intoxicated right now, and it is not Gasol/Bynum, its GASOL OR BYNUM; HUGE DIFFERENCE. Thats essentially saying that Gasol > Chandler/West(I am not even including for less games part) and Bynum > Chanlder/West.

[big123]

-= original quote snipped =-



Kobe Bryant was the one constant through 82 games. GTFO.

That's fine and I don't disagree, but that has nothing to do with what was being discussed.

Gasol and Bynum still had more of an impact for 62 games then West/Chandler did in 80 from a season's perspective. The reason I say this is becuase the Lakers record with either in the lineup is near unbeatable, the Lakers still had the better record despite .500 without them and would of damn near blown out the Honets if either one, especially Gasol was there all year. It's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

[eatyourchildren]

-= original quote snipped =-



That's fine and I don't disagree, but that has nothing to do with what was being discussed.

Gasol and Bynum still had more of an impact for 62 games then West/Chandler did in 80 from a season's perspective. The reason I say this is becuase the Lakers record with either in the lineup is near unbeatable, the Lakers still had the better record despite .500 without them and would of damn near blown out the Honets if either one, especially Gasol was there all year. It's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

So really the only reason why the Lakers aren't like 7-8 games above the Hornets is because neither Center was there all season. That sounds about right. And Kobe is still the best on the team, nobody should really dispute that.

[SA37]

-= original quote snipped =-



Finally. Good.


Your original contention was that Paul's improvement alone was a more significant factor to the Hornets' success this year than the increase in health was to the Hornets' success.

But if you'd choose the increase in health over the increase in Paul's improvement, how can that be the more significant factor if you'd rather have the health of CP's teammates over CP's improvement.

To SA37: Health > CP's improvement, but CP's improvement > Health for Hornet's succees


Logically inconsistent.

I do believe that Paul's improvement has been more significant to the Hornets' improvement this year than the health factor.

What you haven't considered is that the Hornets missed out on Paul last season as well. If he plays in 82 games at the level he played at this year in '06-'07, I have no doubt that between the better player and the 18 games played, the Hornets win AT LEAST 10-12 more games, which would have made them a 50 win team, despite the injuries.

Better overall health will always increase your chances of better team success, but sometimes players overcome the injuries to their team, like Nash and the Suns a couple years ago and Washington did this year. (Butler only played in 58 games and Arenas 13.)