Welcome James Harden!

[Ferry Avenue]

The nature and timing of the loss last night doesn't augur well for this team's success with Harden. You have to wonder how a team that finally unburdened itself of the Simmons drama and acquired one of the best players in the league could go out and be so thoroughly dominated with that player watching on the sidelines as part of the team for the first time. I think that speaks to the fact that Harden isn't really a winner and doesn't contribute to creating a winning culture on the teams he plays for. Consequently it's easy to go out and lay an egg with Harden watching -- playing in that way isn't inconsistent with the team culture Harden helps create. They'll likely have no better character with him on the floor either. They'll certainly play better, but they won't have a winning culture or a winning edge against the best teams in the league, teams that do have that culture and that edge.

Doesn’t culture develop over time? I mean my god he hasn’t even played on the floor and the narrative is he doesn’t help impact winning. To think the mood was better when Simmons was here and ghosting the team is nuts. Or maybe Drummond and Curry created a winning culture despite this?

The problem as I see it is that Harden's character isn't consistent with the kind of winning culture that distinguishes the best teams in the league from each other. When Milwaukee is playing Phoenix in the NBA finals for example, parity in physical talent is roughly equal, and it's character and culture that win out. I don't see Harden promoting that for this team, and I think their performance last night, with him watching as part of the team for the first time, was symptomatic of that. They'll certainly be one of the best teams in the league, but when they go up against the other best teams in the league their character will suffer and they'll get beaten because of it. Last night's performance was very low-character, and the timing of it was very revealing in my opinion.

[Ben]

The nature and timing of the loss last night doesn't augur well for this team's success with Harden. You have to wonder how a team that finally unburdened itself of the Simmons drama and acquired one of the best players in the league could go out and be so thoroughly dominated with that player watching on the sidelines as part of the team for the first time. I think that speaks to the fact that Harden isn't really a winner and doesn't contribute to creating a winning culture on the teams he plays for. Consequently it's easy to go out and lay an egg with Harden watching -- playing in that way isn't inconsistent with the team culture Harden helps create. They'll likely have no better character with him on the floor either. They'll certainly play better, but they won't have a winning culture or a winning edge against the best teams in the league, teams that do have that culture and that edge.

Doesn’t culture develop over time? I mean my god he hasn’t even played on the floor and the narrative is he doesn’t help impact winning. To think the mood was better when Simmons was here and ghosting the team is nuts. Or maybe Drummond and Curry created a winning culture despite this?

The problem as I see it is that Harden's character isn't consistent with the kind of winning culture that distinguishes the best teams in the league from each other. When Milwaukee is playing Phoenix in the NBA finals for example, parity in physical talent is roughly equal, and it's character and culture that win out. I don't see Harden promoting that for this team, and I think their performance last night, with him watching as part of the team for the first time, was symptomatic of that. They'll certainly be one of the best teams in the league, but when they go up against the other best teams in the league their character will suffer and they'll get beaten because of it. Last night's performance was very low-character, and the timing of it was very revealing in my opinion.

Yes and no.
Yes, you can make the argument that character and culture matter, and that you believe that once Harden is around the clubhouse and team long enough to influence those things, his influence won't be positive.

No, you can't argue that last night's game was symptomatic of any of that. That's the faulty reasoning. You can argue that you felt last night to be symbolic of something, in the sense that crappy weather could seem ominous. Symbolic does not equal symptomatic.

[Ferry Avenue]

Doesn’t culture develop over time? I mean my god he hasn’t even played on the floor and the narrative is he doesn’t help impact winning. To think the mood was better when Simmons was here and ghosting the team is nuts. Or maybe Drummond and Curry created a winning culture despite this?

The problem as I see it is that Harden's character isn't consistent with the kind of winning culture that distinguishes the best teams in the league from each other. When Milwaukee is playing Phoenix in the NBA finals for example, parity in physical talent is roughly equal, and it's character and culture that win out. I don't see Harden promoting that for this team, and I think their performance last night, with him watching as part of the team for the first time, was symptomatic of that. They'll certainly be one of the best teams in the league, but when they go up against the other best teams in the league their character will suffer and they'll get beaten because of it. Last night's performance was very low-character, and the timing of it was very revealing in my opinion.

Yes and no.
Yes, you can make the argument that character and culture matter, and that you believe that once Harden is around the clubhouse and team long enough to influence those things, his influence won't be positive.

No, you can't argue that last night's game was symptomatic of any of that. That's the faulty and motivated reasoning. You can argue that you felt last night to be symbolic of something, in the sense that crappy weather could seem ominous. Symbolic does not equal symptomatic.

These players know who James Harden is. They don't have to wait around to see what happens to know who he is and how he'll affect this team.

[Suwanee]

The nature and timing of the loss last night doesn't augur well for this team's success with Harden. You have to wonder how a team that finally unburdened itself of the Simmons drama and acquired one of the best players in the league could go out and be so thoroughly dominated with that player watching on the sidelines as part of the team for the first time. I think that speaks to the fact that Harden isn't really a winner and doesn't contribute to creating a winning culture on the teams he plays for. Consequently it's easy to go out and lay an egg with Harden watching -- playing in that way isn't inconsistent with the team culture Harden helps create. They'll likely have no better character with him on the floor either. They'll certainly play better, but they won't have a winning culture or a winning edge against the best teams in the league, teams that do have that culture and that edge.

Doesn’t culture develop over time? I mean my god he hasn’t even played on the floor and the narrative is he doesn’t help impact winning. To think the mood was better when Simmons was here and ghosting the team is nuts. Or maybe Drummond and Curry created a winning culture despite this?

The problem as I see it is that Harden's character isn't consistent with the kind of winning culture that distinguishes the best teams in the league from each other. When Milwaukee is playing Phoenix in the NBA finals for example, parity in physical talent is roughly equal, and it's character and culture that win out. I don't see Harden promoting that for this team, and I think their performance last night, with him watching as part of the team for the first time, was symptomatic of that. They'll certainly be one of the best teams in the league, but when they go up against the other best teams in the league their character will suffer and they'll get beaten because of it. Last night's performance was very low-character, and the timing of it was very revealing in my opinion.

Harden has arrived in Philly for what, like whole two days? And he already influenced the culture in a big way and caused a blowout by merely sitting on the sideline??? Wow. I've been following Harden for years. But didn't know he is such a big influencer. Almost feel like you're trying to compliment Harden...

[Ben]

The problem as I see it is that Harden's character isn't consistent with the kind of winning culture that distinguishes the best teams in the league from each other. When Milwaukee is playing Phoenix in the NBA finals for example, parity in physical talent is roughly equal, and it's character and culture that win out. I don't see Harden promoting that for this team, and I think their performance last night, with him watching as part of the team for the first time, was symptomatic of that. They'll certainly be one of the best teams in the league, but when they go up against the other best teams in the league their character will suffer and they'll get beaten because of it. Last night's performance was very low-character, and the timing of it was very revealing in my opinion.

Yes and no.
Yes, you can make the argument that character and culture matter, and that you believe that once Harden is around the clubhouse and team long enough to influence those things, his influence won't be positive.

No, you can't argue that last night's game was symptomatic of any of that. That's the faulty and motivated reasoning. You can argue that you felt last night to be symbolic of something, in the sense that crappy weather could seem ominous. Symbolic does not equal symptomatic.

These players know who James Harden is. They don't have to wait around to see what happens to know who he is and how he'll affect this team.

Like I said, faulty reasoning. Fallacy of causation, among other things. It's as if you already know the conclusion you want to arrive at and so anything that happens is going to affirm it. Now you're telling us not only that you know how the players think and feel, and you know how they regard Harden, but that how they think and feel about Harden affected how they played last night. You have to be able to see how untenable that is. Your overall guess as to how the team will do with Harden could wind up being accurate, but that has nothing to do with whether the horrendous outcome last night was symptomatic of an already poisonous influence.

I mean, did Harden's presence cause everyone on Boston to shoot the lights out? Come on.

[Suwanee]

At least wait till he actually steps on the court and plays couple of games before you flame him. Geez.

[zaz102]

Doesn’t culture develop over time? I mean my god he hasn’t even played on the floor and the narrative is he doesn’t help impact winning. To think the mood was better when Simmons was here and ghosting the team is nuts. Or maybe Drummond and Curry created a winning culture despite this?

The problem as I see it is that Harden's character isn't consistent with the kind of winning culture that distinguishes the best teams in the league from each other. When Milwaukee is playing Phoenix in the NBA finals for example, parity in physical talent is roughly equal, and it's character and culture that win out. I don't see Harden promoting that for this team, and I think their performance last night, with him watching as part of the team for the first time, was symptomatic of that. They'll certainly be one of the best teams in the league, but when they go up against the other best teams in the league their character will suffer and they'll get beaten because of it. Last night's performance was very low-character, and the timing of it was very revealing in my opinion.

Harden has arrived in Philly for what, like whole two days? And he already influenced the culture in a big way and caused a blowout by merely sitting on the sideline??? Wow. I've been following Harden for years. But didn't know he is such a big influencer. Almost feel like you're trying to compliment Harden...

I notice this poster only posts weird stuff like Harris scoring 30 points a game is the key to Sixers winning the championship and Sixers would be much better off if they traded Simmons for Hield and thought they would get blasted by the Wizards in the playoffs last year. And only posts negative takes. Pay no mind.

[mjkvol]

The nature and timing of the loss last night doesn't augur well for this team's success with Harden. You have to wonder how a team that finally unburdened itself of the Simmons drama and acquired one of the best players in the league could go out and be so thoroughly dominated with that player watching on the sidelines as part of the team for the first time. I think that speaks to the fact that Harden isn't really a winner and doesn't contribute to creating a winning culture on the teams he plays for. Consequently it's easy to go out and lay an egg with Harden watching -- playing in that way isn't inconsistent with the team culture Harden helps create. They'll likely have no better character with him on the floor either. They'll certainly play better, but they won't have a winning culture or a winning edge against the best teams in the league, teams that do have that culture and that edge.

Very well done, but not very imaginative. This has to be right out of Trolling 101.

[mjkvol]

Yes and no.
Yes, you can make the argument that character and culture matter, and that you believe that once Harden is around the clubhouse and team long enough to influence those things, his influence won't be positive.

No, you can't argue that last night's game was symptomatic of any of that. That's the faulty and motivated reasoning. You can argue that you felt last night to be symbolic of something, in the sense that crappy weather could seem ominous. Symbolic does not equal symptomatic.

These players know who James Harden is. They don't have to wait around to see what happens to know who he is and how he'll affect this team.

Like I said, faulty reasoning. Fallacy of causation, among other things. It's as if you already know the conclusion you want to arrive at and so anything that happens is going to affirm it. Now you're telling us not only that you know how the players think and feel, and you know how they regard Harden, but that how they think and feel about Harden affected how they played last night. You have to be able to see how untenable that is. Your overall guess as to how the team will do with Harden could wind up being accurate, but that has nothing to do with whether the horrendous outcome last night was symptomatic of an already poisonous influence.

I mean, did Harden's presence cause everyone on Boston to shoot the lights out? Come on.

That's way too thoughtful an answer to give to an obvious troll.

[Ben]

These players know who James Harden is. They don't have to wait around to see what happens to know who he is and how he'll affect this team.

Like I said, faulty reasoning. Fallacy of causation, among other things. It's as if you already know the conclusion you want to arrive at and so anything that happens is going to affirm it. Now you're telling us not only that you know how the players think and feel, and you know how they regard Harden, but that how they think and feel about Harden affected how they played last night. You have to be able to see how untenable that is. Your overall guess as to how the team will do with Harden could wind up being accurate, but that has nothing to do with whether the horrendous outcome last night was symptomatic of an already poisonous influence.

I mean, did Harden's presence cause everyone on Boston to shoot the lights out? Come on.

That's way too thoughtful an answer to give to an obvious troll.

In most cases I'd say you're right, but I don't take Ferry Avenue to be a troll. Have read some of their other posts and they seem intelligent. Which is why this just seems like a classic case of motivated reasoning, and all of us are guilty of that sometimes. I *will* point out that this poster kept complaining that we didn't have someone who could create shots down the stretch... and now we have James Harden. It's not really fair to complain either way. "Well I didn't mean THAT clutch shot-creator... I meant one of the many OTHER clutch shot-creators who were available!"

[Ferry Avenue]

Yes and no.
Yes, you can make the argument that character and culture matter, and that you believe that once Harden is around the clubhouse and team long enough to influence those things, his influence won't be positive.

No, you can't argue that last night's game was symptomatic of any of that. That's the faulty and motivated reasoning. You can argue that you felt last night to be symbolic of something, in the sense that crappy weather could seem ominous. Symbolic does not equal symptomatic.

These players know who James Harden is. They don't have to wait around to see what happens to know who he is and how he'll affect this team.

Like I said, faulty reasoning. Fallacy of causation, among other things. It's as if you already know the conclusion you want to arrive at and so anything that happens is going to affirm it. Now you're telling us not only that you know how the players think and feel, and you know how they regard Harden, but that how they think and feel about Harden affected how they played last night. You have to be able to see how untenable that is. Your overall guess as to how the team will do with Harden could wind up being accurate, but that has nothing to do with whether the horrendous outcome last night was symptomatic of an already poisonous influence.

I mean, did Harden's presence cause everyone on Boston to shoot the lights out? Come on.

If 100% certainty in being right about whatever one is saying was a prerequisite for posting in this forum, there wouldn't be a single post here, or the posts that were here would consist of very boring information everyone is already aware of.

I'm making a logical deduction as a function of 1) Harden's character, which by now the players throughout the league are well aware of and which likely will not change, and 2) their performance with him watching on the sidelines for the first time as part of the team, where they cratered and were non-competitive throughout the game, vastly underperforming their norm and showing little if any resolve to correct it at any point.

That game should've been a celebration of a new player's arrival and a "showing off" for him of what the team has, or at the very least a strong, concerted effort to correct a game that didn't unfold in that manner. Instead it was the opposite -- quite striking.

[zaz102]

These players know who James Harden is. They don't have to wait around to see what happens to know who he is and how he'll affect this team.

Like I said, faulty reasoning. Fallacy of causation, among other things. It's as if you already know the conclusion you want to arrive at and so anything that happens is going to affirm it. Now you're telling us not only that you know how the players think and feel, and you know how they regard Harden, but that how they think and feel about Harden affected how they played last night. You have to be able to see how untenable that is. Your overall guess as to how the team will do with Harden could wind up being accurate, but that has nothing to do with whether the horrendous outcome last night was symptomatic of an already poisonous influence.

I mean, did Harden's presence cause everyone on Boston to shoot the lights out? Come on.

If 100% certainty in being right about whatever one is saying was a prerequisite for posting in this forum, there wouldn't be a single post here, or the posts that were here would consist of very boring information everyone is already aware of.

I'm making a logical deduction as a function of 1) Harden's character, which by now the players throughout the league are well aware of and which likely will not change, and 2) their performance with him watching on the sidelines for the first time as part of the team, where they cratered and were non-competitive throughout the game, vastly underperforming their norm and showing little if any resolve to correct it at any point.

That game should've been a celebration of a new player's arrival and a "showing off" for him of what the team has. Instead it was the opposite -- quite striking.

Can being a fan of the team be a prerequisite for posting at least lol. You literally post only weird and negative takes.

[Ben]

These players know who James Harden is. They don't have to wait around to see what happens to know who he is and how he'll affect this team.

Like I said, faulty reasoning. Fallacy of causation, among other things. It's as if you already know the conclusion you want to arrive at and so anything that happens is going to affirm it. Now you're telling us not only that you know how the players think and feel, and you know how they regard Harden, but that how they think and feel about Harden affected how they played last night. You have to be able to see how untenable that is. Your overall guess as to how the team will do with Harden could wind up being accurate, but that has nothing to do with whether the horrendous outcome last night was symptomatic of an already poisonous influence.

I mean, did Harden's presence cause everyone on Boston to shoot the lights out? Come on.

If 100% certainty in being right about whatever one is saying was a prerequisite for posting in this forum, there wouldn't be a single post here, or the posts that were here would consist of very boring information everyone is already aware of.

I'm making a logical deduction as a function of 1) Harden's character, which by now the players throughout the league are well aware of and which likely will not change, and 2) their performance with him watching on the sidelines for the first time as part of the team, where they cratered and were non-competitive throughout the game, vastly underperforming their norm and showing little if any resolve to correct it at any point.

That game should've been a celebration of a new player's arrival and a "showing off" for him of what the team has. Instead it was the opposite -- quite striking.

I've seen some other posts of yours that seem perfectly intelligent, but here you're doubling down in every possible wrong way. Now you're portraying me as saying that people have to be 100% certain of being right in order to post here. Straw man fallacy. This is like a clinic.

[Ferry Avenue]

Like I said, faulty reasoning. Fallacy of causation, among other things. It's as if you already know the conclusion you want to arrive at and so anything that happens is going to affirm it. Now you're telling us not only that you know how the players think and feel, and you know how they regard Harden, but that how they think and feel about Harden affected how they played last night. You have to be able to see how untenable that is. Your overall guess as to how the team will do with Harden could wind up being accurate, but that has nothing to do with whether the horrendous outcome last night was symptomatic of an already poisonous influence.

I mean, did Harden's presence cause everyone on Boston to shoot the lights out? Come on.

If 100% certainty in being right about whatever one is saying was a prerequisite for posting in this forum, there wouldn't be a single post here, or the posts that were here would consist of very boring information everyone is already aware of.

I'm making a logical deduction as a function of 1) Harden's character, which by now the players throughout the league are well aware of and which likely will not change, and 2) their performance with him watching on the sidelines for the first time as part of the team, where they cratered and were non-competitive throughout the game, vastly underperforming their norm and showing little if any resolve to correct it at any point.

That game should've been a celebration of a new player's arrival and a "showing off" for him of what the team has. Instead it was the opposite -- quite striking.

I've seen some other posts of yours that seem perfectly intelligent, but here you're doubling down in every possible wrong way. Now you're portraying me as saying that people have to be 100% certain of being right in order to post here. Straw man fallacy. This is like a clinic.

No, what I'm saying is that just because something cannot be determined to be correct with certainty at the present time doesn't mean someone shouldn't post it or that it has no merit for discussion.

[Ferry Avenue]

The nature and timing of the loss last night doesn't augur well for this team's success with Harden. You have to wonder how a team that finally unburdened itself of the Simmons drama and acquired one of the best players in the league could go out and be so thoroughly dominated with that player watching on the sidelines as part of the team for the first time. I think that speaks to the fact that Harden isn't really a winner and doesn't contribute to creating a winning culture on the teams he plays for. Consequently it's easy to go out and lay an egg with Harden watching -- playing in that way isn't inconsistent with the team culture Harden helps create. They'll likely have no better character with him on the floor either. They'll certainly play better, but they won't have a winning culture or a winning edge against the best teams in the league, teams that do have that culture and that edge.

Very well done, but not very imaginative. This has to be right out of Trolling 101.

I don't troll. I have better things to do. Go back and look through my post history. I predicted about mid-season last year that this team would lose in the playoffs because of Ben Simmons, that his lackluster effort would undermine the team and that opposing teams would foul him on purpose and put him on the FT line where he would lose games. Some folks thought I was "trolling" then as well -- not so of course.

That doesn't mean I'm always right about everything. But I'll bet I have my finger on this team's pulse far better than the average person.

[Suwanee]

If 100% certainty in being right about whatever one is saying was a prerequisite for posting in this forum, there wouldn't be a single post here, or the posts that were here would consist of very boring information everyone is already aware of.

I'm making a logical deduction as a function of 1) Harden's character, which by now the players throughout the league are well aware of and which likely will not change, and 2) their performance with him watching on the sidelines for the first time as part of the team, where they cratered and were non-competitive throughout the game, vastly underperforming their norm and showing little if any resolve to correct it at any point.

That game should've been a celebration of a new player's arrival and a "showing off" for him of what the team has. Instead it was the opposite -- quite striking.

I've seen some other posts of yours that seem perfectly intelligent, but here you're doubling down in every possible wrong way. Now you're portraying me as saying that people have to be 100% certain of being right in order to post here. Straw man fallacy. This is like a clinic.

No, what I'm saying is that just because something cannot be determined to be correct with certainty at the present time doesn't mean someone shouldn't post it or that it has no merit for discussion.

Nobody is saying you can't predict what's going to happen. Will Harden influence the culture in a bad way over time? Not impossible. But to say that he's already done that in two days, on the sideline no less, is ludicrous at best.

[Ferry Avenue]

I've seen some other posts of yours that seem perfectly intelligent, but here you're doubling down in every possible wrong way. Now you're portraying me as saying that people have to be 100% certain of being right in order to post here. Straw man fallacy. This is like a clinic.

No, what I'm saying is that just because something cannot be determined to be correct with certainty at the present time doesn't mean someone shouldn't post it or that it has no merit for discussion.

Nobody is saying you can't predict what's going to happen. Will Harden influence the culture in a bad way over time? Not impossible. But to say that he's already done that in two days, on the sideline no less, is ludicrous at best.

What I'm saying is that the performance last night is entirely consistent with that eventuality. If the team would've obtained Giannis for example and he was sitting there on the sideline watching as part of the team for the first time, you can bet the performance would've been vastly different.

[zaz102]

No, what I'm saying is that just because something cannot be determined to be correct with certainty at the present time doesn't mean someone shouldn't post it or that it has no merit for discussion.

Nobody is saying you can't predict what's going to happen. Will Harden influence the culture in a bad way over time? Not impossible. But to say that he's already done that in two days, on the sideline no less, is ludicrous at best.

What I'm saying is that the performance last night is entirely consistent with that eventuality. If the team would've obtained Giannis for example and he was sitting there on the sideline watching as part of the team for the first time, you can bet the performance would've been vastly different.

What? Why? It could definitely turn sour? But why did they play bad last night just because Harden was there? How would Giannis sitting on the sidelines make a difference?

[Ferry Avenue]

Nobody is saying you can't predict what's going to happen. Will Harden influence the culture in a bad way over time? Not impossible. But to say that he's already done that in two days, on the sideline no less, is ludicrous at best.

What I'm saying is that the performance last night is entirely consistent with that eventuality. If the team would've obtained Giannis for example and he was sitting there on the sideline watching as part of the team for the first time, you can bet the performance would've been vastly different.

What? Why? It could definitely turn sour? But why did they play bad last night just because Harden was there? How would Giannis sitting on the sidelines make a difference?

A low-character guy who jumps from team to team while constantly making noise about being dissatisfied with his surroundings hardly inspires an effort consistent with "showing off" what the team has for him and celebrating his arrival, with a palpable sense of exuberance about what's to come with him as part of the team. That entire dynamic is markedly different with a high-character guy who plays at the same level.

[Suwanee]

No, what I'm saying is that just because something cannot be determined to be correct with certainty at the present time doesn't mean someone shouldn't post it or that it has no merit for discussion.

Nobody is saying you can't predict what's going to happen. Will Harden influence the culture in a bad way over time? Not impossible. But to say that he's already done that in two days, on the sideline no less, is ludicrous at best.

What I'm saying is that the performance last night is entirely consistent with that eventuality.

Again, like Ben said, you've already drawn your conclusion (the eventuality), then you just use any incident that fits your narrative to affirm it.

If the team would've obtained Giannis for example and he was sitting there on the sideline watching as part of the team for the first time, you can bet the performance would've been vastly different.

I mean, it was a 40+ blowout. It's not difficult to have a vastly different performance on any other night. But it doesn't really mean anything.