Knicks VS Wizards GT: 7:30 PM

[Dat2U]

hot garbage

And look who shows up on cue. Your so predictable and consistently pathetic. No where to be found on certain nights and can't wait to spew garbage on other nights. Don't bother responding either, you just got put on ignore. My only wish is that someone else doesn't quote your nonsense.

[pancakes3]

call me a bad fan but i have no feelings either way about our wins/losses any more. the only game that matters is the final one where we beat miami.

[hands11]

And JJ's imagining Wall on TV saying "I'm taking my talents to South Park"

LOL. Except I can't really understand anything he says because he talks so fast.

Where did he learn to talk like that? It is pretty unusual. I have commented on him doing this several times. Can you think of other NBA players that talk like he does ?

I have seen him interviewed a couple times when he talked slower. It made for a better interview. He seems more mature in those interviews.

I do have an interest in the mental, psychological, personality, smarts side of evaluating basketball players. I think these characteristic of a player are not evaluated or weighed as a skill near enough. It is actually very important in determining what kind of game you will get from a player and how they will develop. Height, standing reach, quickness are all nice traits to have but they can yield less then peak return if the right brain/personality is not attacked to them. There are just as many categories if not more to describe peoples brain skills and these are the things that make all the difference in creating players like Magic, Bird, MJ and Nash.

Control of emotions, sound quick decision making, dedication/mental discipline, Mental acuity, mental coordination, maturity, how you communicate, leadership skills. Basketball is clearly as much about mental skills as it is physical skills. Obviously this less true for players that do one thing well on the court. They just rebound or just shoot 3 pointers. It is still important, but they have less to evaluate.

[FAH1223]

bad game, **** happens...the team isn't that bad.
on to cleveland

[hands11]

bad game, **** happens...the team isn't that bad.
on to cleveland

Yeah, and like someone else posted, if they get to the point where their 2nd slot is secured so it is no worst then the 5th pick, then they can activate anyone on the roster and really try to win every game. If they were not in tank mode, we would see Nene and Booker. And they probably want to get Dray out there at some point soon so they can show his improved conditioning. I'm kind of interested in seeing how well he has progressed. What Dray does in these closing games isn't going to make a huge difference in his trade value but if he is in shape and plays the right way, it wouldn't hurt. It would help some on the margin.

But I could even see them bringing him back. Yeah he is expensive for a back up PF/C if he isn't playing but he does add some needed experienced depth that would be good for next year. They can always trade him at the deadline next year or amnesty him the next off season. No need to move him unless his salary starts to get in the way. As this team is now constructed and with Dray as a back up, I don't see his personality causing any problems. I think he got the message. He isn't a core piece so he has to fight for a roster spot and fall in line if he want to play anywhere in the league. I think he got the wake up call. He did get to lazy or misjudged the mountain still ahead of him once he won the starting job and paid.

What he missed was that it was a starting job on a really bad team that was rebuilding. He saw himself as a core piece that was a vet on a young team. We saw that in his opening speech. What he found out was something different. The Wiz did the right thing in deactivating him, and it sent the message that needed to get sent. He also saw that in them shipping out Gil, Nick and McGee. I think Dray will rebound from this bottom and we will see him stay in the league another 7 years. He might not be a regular starter for a while but he will be an important back up PF/C for some team. He could still earn his contract. If he is in shape, Dray can early prove to be worth $7,118,502 with his skills and experience. From there, if he is playing well, we will see if he can prove to be worth the last two years of his contract. And he really only need to prove to be worth his $7,794,921 2013/2014 money because after that, he would had expiring contract value for his last year. At some point next year, I don't think Drays contract will be viewed in that worst contract category that players fall into. That's if it even gets to that point. If you amnesty him, I think after next year is the year to do it if needed.

[dangermouse]

Not worried about this game. Or *much* of this asterisk laden season.

Next season is crunch time for us as a franchise.

Think about Sonics/OKC. They didnt make any real noise until Durant's 3rd season. And that was with another stud helping him out in Westbrook.

Wall really has had no one. He had Nene for like 1 game or something. He has never had another stud or potential stud playing with him, ever.

This draft is so important for us going forward. If we dont get another 2nd tier stud on the level of Westbrook we are boned. Fingers crossed for Davis, he can be a stud on a level above Wall, i reckons.

If Ernie is responsible for bumbling another high pick then it is going to be really hard to watch the Wizards for the next few years.

Just think: at least we arent the Bobcats or the Nets.

[JonathanJoseph]

hot garbage

And look who shows up on cue. Your so predictable and consistently pathetic. No where to be found on certain nights and can't wait to spew garbage on other nights. Don't bother responding either, you just got put on ignore. My only wish is that someone else doesn't quote your nonsense.

LOL. Ignore is literally short for ignorance.

I assume that moving from consistent anger towards my posts to ignoring them is your not so subtle admission that you can't really compete on the substance.

Good riddance.

edit: Didn't you say that you were putting me on ignore months ago? Uh huh.

[truwizfan4evr]

no game thread?

[fugop]

Actually, "ignore" is not a shortened form of "ignorant." One is a verb, and one a noun; they share a common root, (Latin "noscere"), but have different connotations. The "shortened form" is only applicable to abbreviations or neologisms.

It brings up an interesting point in epistemology, though -- given our fallible filter of good information from bad, when do we reach a point where ignoring a source of "information" actually increases our overall knowledge? Obviously, relevant when it comes to trolls, but also with more conventional sources of information, like Fox News.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 5116.story

A new survey of New Jersey voters comes to a provocative conclusion: Fox News viewers tend to be less informed about current events than those who don't watch any news at all.

Fairleigh Dickinson University recently questioned 612 adults in New Jersey about how they get their news, offering as options traditional outlets like newspapers and local and national television news, or blogs, websites and even Comedy Central's "The Daily Show."

They then asked a series of factual questions about the major events of the last year, from the "Arab Spring" to the Republican race for president.

For example, respondents were first asked whether, to the best of their knowledge, opposition groups in Egypt had been successful in bringing down the Mubarak regime.

Among NPR listeners, 68% correctly said they had been; only 49% of Fox News viewers answered correctly. In fact, the survey found, Fox viewers were 18 percentage points less likely to answer correctly than those who watched no news at all.

"The results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don't watch any news at all," said Dan Cassino, a political science professor at Fairleigh Dickinson.

[JonathanJoseph]

Actually, "ignore" is not a shortened form of "ignorant." One is a verb, and one a noun; they share a common root, (Latin "noscere"), but have different connotations. The "shortened form" is only applicable to abbreviations or neologisms.

It brings up an interesting point in epistemology, though -- given our fallible filter of good information from bad, when do we reach a point where ignoring a source of "information" actually increases our overall knowledge? Obviously, relevant when it comes to trolls, but also with more conventional sources of information, like Fox News.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 5116.story

A new survey of New Jersey voters comes to a provocative conclusion: Fox News viewers tend to be less informed about current events than those who don't watch any news at all.

Fairleigh Dickinson University recently questioned 612 adults in New Jersey about how they get their news, offering as options traditional outlets like newspapers and local and national television news, or blogs, websites and even Comedy Central's "The Daily Show."

They then asked a series of factual questions about the major events of the last year, from the "Arab Spring" to the Republican race for president.

For example, respondents were first asked whether, to the best of their knowledge, opposition groups in Egypt had been successful in bringing down the Mubarak regime.

Among NPR listeners, 68% correctly said they had been; only 49% of Fox News viewers answered correctly. In fact, the survey found, Fox viewers were 18 percentage points less likely to answer correctly than those who watched no news at all.

"The results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don't watch any news at all," said Dan Cassino, a political science professor at Fairleigh Dickinson.

All of this is technically true, but not quite what I meant. Of course if you only listen to one very biased source of information you tend to be misinformed, as Fox News viewers are.

The most informed person will make certain to read sources of information from opposing ideologies to use the full range of opinions in order to form their own. I have followed Michelle Malkin on Twitter for a long time to try to understand her point of view, even though it often makes me want to gouge my own eyeballs and weep for the future. Willfully ignoring someone just because you don't agree with their opinion (not fact, opinion) is without question a form of ignorance. This is not a case where I'm trying to convince a poster that the sky is orange.

[Illuminaire]

JJ,

You're still just coming off a credibility destroying claim that Wall has only had three good games all season - a head-scratching assertion I don't believe you ever admitted the ridiculousness of. You're also fresh off suggesting that Arenas might average 20/10 in the near future.

Substance does not appear to be your specialty. Moderately interesting analysis followed by wild leaps of opinion is more your style; alternatively, stick with your standard idiom of passive aggressive argumentation and a peculiar unwillingness to back off from unsupportable statements. If none of those strike your fancy, Dat definitely can't compete with your self-victimization, so feel free to fall back on that any time.

[JonathanJoseph]

JJ,

You're still just coming off a credibility destroying claim that Wall has only had three good games all season - a head-scratching assertion I don't believe you ever admitted the ridiculousness of. You're also fresh off suggesting that Arenas might average 20/10 in the near future.

Substance does not appear to be your specialty. Moderately interesting analysis followed by wild leaps of opinion is more your style; alternatively, stick with your standard idiom of passive aggressive argumentation and a peculiar unwillingness to back off from unsupportable statements. If none of those strike your fancy, Dat definitely can't compete with your self-victimization, so feel free to fall back on that any time.

Yawn. I've said that it's about 5 games now that I think Wall has played well. I define good games by doing things that help teams win games, not accumulate statistics. Sort of like yesterday where Wall had 19/9 w/2 turnovers on 50% FG, yet I don't think he played well as evidenced by the fact that the Wizards lost by a lot at home to a D league team. The numbers suggest he played at an All-NBA level, yet couldn't get a win against a team that was did not field a single player who is of NBA starting quality. If he's playing at the level his numbers suggest than the Wiz should have won that game easily and he should have been the best player on the court by a wide margin. So yeah, I have seen a player who does things that lose basketball games all but about 4 or 5 times this season.

Arenas OTOH has made a real difference in Memphis, which has become one of if not the hottest team in the NBA. If you don't want to take the direct quotes from his teammates and coaches then there are advanced statistics that show that Arenas is making a significant difference even though he's played very passively and in a limited role. I posted a few, without comment, in the Arenas thread a few days ago.

So you can say that there is no substance and that the claims are unsupportable, but that wouldn't be accurate. And since they are opinions, you are free to disagree with the claims but I have no intention on backing off them. Self-victimization is a rich claim considering the poster in question follows me from thread to thread making hostile comments and spewing insults and you just posted a few insults of your own. If I chuckle at his empty threat of "ignoring" my posts long after he already made an identical threat which he seems not to have followed through on you'll excuse me if I point out the ridiculousness.