But how destructive, really?

One and done in the playoffs destructive.

Look, you really think the Celtics this year, with the complement of players Garnett has, is any different than the ones kobe had after Shaq left? Check out the pre-season polls. Nearly everyone, including me, didn't think Garnett had the talent around him to compete. You look at the bench the Celtics had this year, and the two other starters, Rondo and Perkins, and every one of them, every last one, was a big question mark.

Not only has the team congealed around Garnett, they've congealed to such an extent that they are being considered a legitimately dominant team!

There's no reason the same thing couldn't have occurred with the Lakers back them. But Kobe was too much a selfish prick to allow it to happen. He wanted to score a boatload of points, instead of accumulating W's.

Now that he's realized his way doesn't work, he's now adapting, belatedly, to winning basketball. I was stunned the other day, watching him play with the bandage on his hand, beautifully distributing the ball and really making the offense go. Well, why couldn't he have done that before? Why did it take a hand injury that prevented him from shooting, to make him a great ballplayer?

Andy:

I have to agree w/DMN's characterization of your argumentative mode. Why is the issue "come up with some scenario where there's a rebellion" when it was "How effective can an armed insurrection be?" I have no idea why you think I have to answer that question, or have a stake in it.

Maybe it's because my argument has been confined to the country we live in, Second Amendment and all, and you want to talk about Iraq and Afghanistan. I still find it hard to relate conditions in the United States---gun control or no gun control---to two of the most unstable countries in the world. And I'm still wondering how either "armed rebellion" or "armed insurrection" has anything remotely to do with the real world of the United States of the 21st century. But again, maybe you can bring us up to speed on this. I'm sincerely puzzled.

I'd say Kobe is more than just "one of the 10 best." For his build, he has nearly maxed out his ability, and I think Jordan was an anomaly. If I'm building a team for one season, I'd take Lebron, then KG, then Duncan, then Paul or Kobe, then it gets a little muddier (Deron Williams, Baron Davis, TMac, Dwight Howard, Nash, Carmelo, Amare, Irk (no D!) maybe Ginobili are on the next tier; Boozer, Pierce, Ellis, Roy, West, Parker, Gasol, Brand, Arenas, Butler, AI, Redd are great as second options but probably can't carry a team; Jefferson, Oden, Durant, Horford, Aldridge and a few others could grow into any one of those 3 groups; I have no idea where to put the detroit guys, Marion, Wade, R. Jefferson, or Carter at this point). I think you can win a championship if you have a guy from group A and a guy from group B, a chance to compete for one with an A and a C, a chance to win a playoff series or two with two B's or a B and a C, and a chance to make the playoffs with two C's. The MVP should never be a guy who couldn't carry a team to a title.

Armed rebellion? Weren't the Branch Davidians that?

Aren't "sleeper cells" of terrorists in this country "armed rebellions"? They are just waiting to strike, and there's little we can do about it.

No, I don't think it can take down the government.

FWIW, after watching 40 KG games a year for his entire career, I thought that Boston looked like a 60 win team before the start of the year. I've always been a big Posey fan, and I thought Powe was a good piece in college. I underrated Pierce, Rondo, and Davis, and overrated Allen, but the day that trade went down I was certain that they would make the finals.

Resisting the government is probably best done peacefully at this point, especially if your aims are either revolutionary or seditious. You'll live longer and get more done. That's not an argument for gun control.

"France technically was the winner in both but I'm hard-pressed to think of another example of a victor looking so bad and losing so much after coming out on top in such a titantic conflict."

How about the Peloponnesian War? Sparta "won", but it took 'em an awful long time, and cost a ton of blood and treasure.

andrew, go to the NBA lounge. Moses Taylor has the Celtics 4th in the east.

the Rangers were outfought by the Somalis

Not bad enough that we lose to the Angels and Mariners every year.

Look, you really think the Celtics this year, with the complement of players Garnett has, is any different than the ones kobe had after Shaq left? Check out the pre-season polls. Nearly everyone, including me, didn't think Garnett had the talent around him to compete.

1. You're crazy. Just in general.

2. You think a group that includes Pierce and Ray Allen, two likely Hall-of-Famers, is comparable to Odom/Smush/Kwame/Walton? Please.

3. NBA.com's preseason predictions had eight of their nine experts polled predicting the Celtics to take their division, with two predictions to go to the Finals. ESPN had 14 of thier 18 pick the Celtics in the Atlantic and four picked them to go to the Finals.

The idea that the Celtics were considered some big question mark by the preseason polls is ignorant.

There's no reason the same thing couldn't have occurred with the Lakers back them. But Kobe was too much a selfish prick to allow it to happen. He wanted to score a boatload of points, instead of accumulating W's.

What was he going to do? Make Smush Parker better? Make Kwame Brown better? Ask Michael Jordan how that turned out. Kobe had exactly one guy on his team that could be considered a legit starter on most other teams, while this year's Celtics have three guys Hall-bound. A team cannot start two non-contributors and still be playoff competitive, and I don't think you can blame the shooting guard for that.

Are you so blinded by your bias that you can't understand that the 2005-2007 Lakers didn't have anything approaching the talent the Celtics own right now?

Yes, yes you are.

How about the Peloponnesian War? Sparta "won", but it took 'em an awful long time, and cost a ton of blood and treasure.

I'm not sure that one fits. After all, they did win, even if it seemingly took forever. And they were able to hang onto their "empire"

What'w weird about WWI is that Germany came out of it much stronger than France did, even with the draconian concessions the armistice imposed.

Not bad enough that we lose to the Angels and Mariners every year.

Hey, I'm pretty sure the Rangers could contend for a pennant in the Somali league, but they'd have to get past the Somali Pirates first though. Literally.

Nearly everyone, including me, didn't think Garnett had the talent around him to compete.

Before the season, you said Celtics' "best-case" was winning the title. I forget what "worst-case" was, but I think it was about 50 wins and the second round.

There's no reason the same thing couldn't have occurred with the Lakers back them.

I addressed this, in detail, on the previous page. Garnett has Pierce, Allen and several solid role players. Rondo is far better than Smush Parker; Perkins is far better than Kwame Brown. Once the Posey deal went through, I looked at the Boston roster and knew they would be right there with Detroit. I see the Lakers 20 or 30 times a year, and as pointed out, they were starting Brown and Parker, both of whom are borderline guys to be on a roster at all. Bryant is playing like he is now because the talent around him has dramatically improved, so when he gives the ball up, good things happen sometimes. I know you hate him, so the irony is that you are, in effect, overrating him--assuming that he has the power to transform waiver fodder into a contender but did not do so because he is a jerk. That is a grossly exaggerated picture of his skills, and he is a hell of a player.

You add that to the massive difference in conference strength, and the picture is clear.

The Lakers are the #1 seed in the West without their starting center and their best small forward. It was quite a thing. We will see what they do next. They can beat anyone in the West--and lose to anyone in the West.

You think a group that includes Pierce and Ray Allen, two likely Hall-of-Famers, is comparable to Odom/Smush/Kwame/Walton? Please.

Allen has bee fighting ankle injuries all year and has been inconsistent.

They had Pierce last year and the year before, with better bench players, and only won 24 and 33 games.

The reason those players the Lakers had then looked bad is because Kobe didn't allow them to succeed.

What was he going to do? Make Smush Parker better? Make Kwame Brown better?

Exactly. Making them worse didn't seem to do much good.

The reason those players the Lakers had then looked bad is because Kobe didn't allow them to succeed.

Then why have Vujacic, Bynum, Farmar, and Turiaf all improved so much, while Brown got some DNPs in Memphis, and Parker has been in and out of the league?

I was defending the Rangers- the post I was responding to implied that the Rangers were outfought by the Somalis, which was simply not true, they outfought the Somalis

I waws agreeing with you, and bumming your stuff as a jumpoing off point.

The point was not that the Somalis outfought the Rangers. It was that the Somalis drove off the Rangers despite the latter's superior weapons, which is indisputable. Whether they should have been there or whatever is irrelevant.

The point was not that it's a "model" of US insurgent resistance, but that it's another instance of an inferiorly equipped force repeling a superior force b/c of the difficulty of counter-insurgent warfare.

with better bench players

not true. they lost jefferson who can score, but can't defend. who else did they lose? delonte west? gerald green? ryan gomes? please. they added posey and house, and powe and rondo have really improved in their 2nd year. and perkins has really improved throughout this season.

Still waiting Joey. How do McCain's statements about Iraq not show he is completely wrong about the current situation there? My post was a while ago, so i'll repost it in case you've forgotten calling me a jackass then not responding to my reply.

Some recent things McCain has said about Iraq that are completely false, in addition to his frequent mix-ups regarding Sunnis and Shi'as:

"Apparently it was Sadr who asked for the ceasefire, declared a ceasefire. It wasn’t Maliki. Very rarely do I see the winning side declare a ceasefire." This is completely wrong. It was Maliki's allies in Parliament who went to Iran to get an Iranian general to broker the ceasefire.

"His [Sadr's] influence has been on the wane for a long time." I don't even need to get into how wrong this is.

He has also repeatedly stated our need to back Maliki and his allies against Iranian-backed militias, ignoring that Maliki and his ISCI allies are Iranian backed and have a militia that was trained in Iran.

Then why have Vujacic, Bynum, Farmar, and Turiaf all improved so much, while Brown got some DNPs in Memphis, and Parker has been in and out of the league?

Kobe isn't the same selfish prick this year that he was in years past.

they added posey and house, and powe and rondo have really improved in their 2nd year. and perkins has really improved throughout this season.

All these guys magically "improved" this year, all at the same time?

Don't you think getting Garnett has had a role in that?

i think rondo improved on his own. powe, too ... i mean, that's pretty common for 2nd year players. you're right about perkins, though--he really benefits from playing along side garnett.

An armed citizen militia is not going to be able to keep itself from being oppressed by the government in 2008. And it isn't needed to ward off the predations of would-be foreign oppressors.

Ok, Andy, once again: above is the original statement. I object to as thoughtless the first sentence. Why would I think an armed militia couldn't successfully resist US gov'tal "oppression" given that insurgencies (as in Baghdad, Somalia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere) have successfully fought off superior forces?

Obviously it's hypothetical. That was the original claim. Today there is no governmental oppression; the gov't wasn't "oppressing" Southerners in the 1950s and '60s. Were there gov'tal oppression in the US it would by nature involve disposing a significant portion of the population against it (since "oppression" connotes cruel and arbitrary exercise of power). Its political support, IOW, would be weak and it would presumably rely on military force. That our citizenry is armed will make that oppression unstable. I can guarantee you that any military commander would prefer to "oppress" an unarmed population. One can see, then, why today even people cherish their right to arms.

BTW: I'm not one of those people.

The point was not that it's a "model" of US insurgent resistance, but that it's another instance of an inferiorly equipped force repelling a superior force b/c of the difficulty of counter-insurgent warfare.

No, it's another instance of an inferiorly equipped force repelling a superiorly armed force b/c the more poorly equipped force had overwhelming numerical superiority.

I know what you are trying to say, but that Mogadishu battle is terrible example, better ones from Iraq , and Lebanon and Afganistan etc etc are available.

Allen has bee fighting ankle injuries all year and has been inconsistent.

Allen's ankle could fall off and he'd still be better than Smush Parker. Parker, by the way, was deemed so pointless even the Miami Heat cut him loose. He's in L.A. now, playing badly for the Clippers. For all of Allen's injury issues, he's shooting 45%, and 40% from three. It goes without saying that Parker has never been able to do either.

They had Pierce last year and the year before, with better bench players, and only won 24 and 33 games.

The Celtics are returning exactly one full-time starter: Pierce. Garnett and Allen are galaxies better than their predecessors. They're so much better talent-wise from last year, if they weren't wearing uniforms you wouldn't know it was the same organization. Starters aside, are you honestly saying that this year's bench with House, Posey and Davis is worse than last year's bench? You're insane.

What was he going to do? Make Smush Parker better? Make Kwame Brown better?

Exactly. Making them worse didn't seem to do much good.

Kobe's a basketball player, not a sorceror. He can't turn Parker into anything other than what he is. For the record, both Parker and Brown had BY FAR their best seasons playing next to Bryant, so not only did Bryant not make them worse, at their best those two guys were still unacceptably poor players.

The point was not that the Somalis outfought the Rangers. It was that the Somalis drove off the Rangers despite the latter's superior weapons, which is indisputable. Whether they should have been there or whatever is irrelevant.

The point was not that it's a "model" of US insurgent resistance, but that it's another instance of an inferiorly equipped force repeling a superior force b/c of the difficulty of counter-insurgent warfare.

Agreed. Sad episode that... I went to high school with one of the soldiers killed in the Black Hawk Down incident. We weren't buddies or anything, but I remember him as a good guy.

I recall P.J. O'Rourke once described Somalia as a sort of national game of Clue, where the culprit was:

1. Everybody
2. With the AK-47
3. In public.

that insurgencies (as in Baghdad, Somalia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere) have successfully fought off superior forces?

fwiw, some of those insurgencies were armed by the US gov't ... i don't think an insurgency here can rely on that.

It just occurred to me that Joey might have me on ignore, so does anyone want to help me out and repost my post from above? I'm really interested in seeing if Joey has a real response, as generally the response to points criticizing neocon policy on Iraq is to call the opposition terrorist-loving defeatists

"I'm not sure that one fits. After all, they did win, even if it seemingly took forever. And they were able to hang onto their 'empire'"

If you roll the events of the subsequent Corinthian War into things, though, Sparta ended up with no fleet in a world that had moved from hoplite battles to sea power, and Athens resurgent. Sparta was pretty much saved by the Persians, who stopped supporting their proxies in Thebes/Corinth as part of a larger strategy of keeping the whole region weak. Postwar Sparta was able to use their political powers to keep the other city-states too divided to pose a direct threat to them, but all that ultimately did was make it easier for Philip of Macedon to roll through the whole region like an elephant squashing a peanut.

It just occurred to me that Joey might have me on ignore, so does anyone want to help me out and repost my post from above? I'm really interested in seeing if Joey has a real response, as generally the response to points criticizing neocon policy on Iraq is to call the opposition terrorist-loving defeatists

You're looking for a real response from Joey? Have you never interacted with him before?

No, it's another instance of an inferiorly equipped force repelling a superiorly armed force b/c the more poorly equipped force had overwhelming numerical superiority.

No, it's part of the point: first, numerical superiority doesn't win wars or battles; tactics and politics do. If we're outnumbered as we were in that case, it's b/c we lack political support for our position there. That's part of the insurgency (that's why the Basque example is not relevant - the vast majority of Spaniards don't give a #### about them). Our military has one plenty of battles where it was vastly outnumbered, as have all great militaries. But, when you're "oppressing" a rebellion, you're typically going to be fighting against numbers (and against a hostile population). That's the supposition of the scenario that I objected to. An armed insurgency in the US - on the very unlikely chance one occurred - would be very difficult for our military to defeat. That was the substance of my reply.

Kobe's a basketball player, not a sorceror. He can't turn Parker into anything other than what he is.

Bird was able to do it with guys like Fred Roberts, Rick Carlisle, David Thirdkill and Brad Lohaus.

Joey,

nycfan thinks you may have him on ignore, and would like you to weigh in on this. Since I'm a uniter, I am re-posting it for him--I don't think you have me on ignore.


Still waiting Joey. How do McCain's statements about Iraq not show he is completely wrong about the current situation there? My post was a while ago, so i'll repost it in case you've forgotten calling me a jackass then not responding to my reply.


Some recent things McCain has said about Iraq that are completely false, in addition to his frequent mix-ups regarding Sunnis and Shi'as:

"Apparently it was Sadr who asked for the ceasefire, declared a ceasefire. It wasn’t Maliki. Very rarely do I see the winning side declare a ceasefire." This is completely wrong. It was Maliki's allies in Parliament who went to Iran to get an Iranian general to broker the ceasefire.

"His [Sadr's] influence has been on the wane for a long time." I don't even need to get into how wrong this is.

He has also repeatedly stated our need to back Maliki and his allies against Iranian-backed militias, ignoring that Maliki and his ISCI allies are Iranian backed and have a militia that was trained in Iran.

***

Why would I think an armed militia couldn't successfully resist US gov'tal "oppression" given that insurgencies (as in Baghdad, Somalia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere) have successfully fought off superior forces?

Because none of those examples are parallels to the hypothetical-

Governments are far more successful suppressing insurgencies in THEIR OWN Countries than they are in suppressing insurgencies in foreign lands.

1: More is at stake, an insurgency may make a foreign occupier leave simply by bloodying the occupier's nose, a government won't abidicate from it's own country simply because it lost a few troops out in the sticks, or because the swat teams were run off by rioters.

2: It's much easier for a government to infiltrate a rebellion of it's own people than a rebellion in a far off land.

It's very rare for an armed insurrection to take down it's own government. Governments may collapse, and the military disintegrates and rebels, and insurrectionists may take advantage of that. The vast majority of would be Castros do not end up as El Presidente- they end up KIA, executed or in exile.

The Celtics are returning exactly one full-time starter: Pierce. Garnett and Allen are galaxies better than their predecessors. They're so much better talent-wise from last year

Yeah, because they got Garnett. Thanks for making my point for me.

Bird was able to do it with guys like Fred Roberts, Rick Carlisle, David Thirdkill and Brad Lohaus.

Yeah, I remember those guys were the other four starters on the Celtics' best teams.

It's not at all relevant when the laws no longer do anything that is racist in it's intent or outcome. We aren't banning guns that, for one reason or another, black people tend to own significantly more. We aren't banning guns that are much cheaper than other, similar guns, or guns that rich people prefer and poor people can't get.

Er, actually, we are; that's completely wrong. Ever hear of "Saturday Night Specials"? That's precisely what some gun control laws target, and they're essentially defined as cheap guns that black people tend to own.

Garnett would have a very good case for the MVP if he hadn't missed the time that he did. But that hurts him. Lebron has something like 700 minutes on him. But Garnett has been great, the anchor of the best defense in the league. (They are 3 points per 100 possessions better than any other team in the league; thats absurd.)

But Garnett did miss that time and I think the MVP comes down to Lebron or Paul. I think its LBJ.

With regard to Kobe vs Lebron, I am trying to figure out what Kobe does better than Lebron. Kobe's main claim to fame is his scoring. Does he score better than Lebron? Lebron has scored all of .6 points per 40 minutes more than Kobe this year, but Kobe did outscore him by 4 points per 40 more last year. (Lakers play a faster place than Cle, if Cle played faster thats more shots and points for LBJ) Kobe might score better than Lebron, but does he do it more efficiently? Kobe has a TSP of 57.6, Lebron is 56.8. So it looks like Kobe scores better, or at least more efficiently this year. Except Lebron uses more possessions than Kobe, he uses 3 more possessions per 100 at a slightly lower efficiency. I think thats a push, or Lebron is better on the pure scoring end.
But thats its. Lebron rebounds better, he passes better, he even has a lower TO rate. (He carries a heavier load, the heaviest in the league I believe, but he still has a lower TO rate than Kobe.)

Is Kobe a better defender? I am not convinced. Lebron is a better rebounder, which is part of defense. They have a similar rate of blocks, and Lebon gets more steals. That certainly isn't all their is to defense, but at based on that, the best Kobe can hope for is a push on defense.

82games.com did a cool article a few days ago talking about how players have produced in the clutch this year. (They defined it as 4th quarter or overtime, less than 5 minutes left, neither team ahead by more than 5 points.) Per 48 minutes, Kobe is scoring 51 points, good for second in the league, on 44.8% shooting. (Thats absurd, and it shows you how often teams get the ball to their best player with the game on the line; not that it is a shock or anything.) He is second to Lebron, who is scoring 57.4 points per 48 on 47.8% shooting.

To me, Lebron is the best player, and most valuable, in the league, and it is scary to think he could get even better. The Cavs have disappointed this year, but I am not ruling out another trip to the finals because they have him.

first, numerical superiority doesn't win wars or battles

You have some good things to say, but that was a pretty bad lead in, you might want to say. "numerical superiority alone doesn't necessarily win battles"- because a great many battles and wars in history has been decided by what you claim is irrelevant.

An armed insurgency in the US - on the very unlikely chance one occurred - would be very difficult for our military to defeat. That was the substance of my reply.

Depends on what a military is willing to do, or, more properly, how much it values tactical victory at whatever costs.

I'm sure that the U.S. military in response to Mogadishu could simply have levelled the entire city (well, to the extent that it wasn't already in ruinous shape) except that that would have wrecked America's world image while accomplishing nothing constructive from any standpoint.

Then why have Vujacic, Bynum, Farmar, and Turiaf all improved so much, while Brown got some DNPs in Memphis, and Parker has been in and out of the league?

Kobe isn't the same selfish prick this year that he was in years past.

That must be the case with Garnett also being a selfish prick, then, because the Wolves couldn't even make the playoffs the previous three seasons, and totally quit at the end of last season, losing 35 of their last 47, and their last seven in a row. I guess he was just so selfish he couldn't make Marko Jaric better.

That's the supposition of the scenario that I objected to. An armed insurgency in the US - on the very unlikely chance one occurred - would be very difficult for our military to defeat. That was the substance of my reply.

And if the moon were made of green cheese, it would give even the biggest mouse one hell of a bellyache if he tried to eat it.

The Celtics are returning exactly one full-time starter: Pierce. Garnett and Allen are galaxies better than their predecessors. They're so much better talent-wise from last year

Yeah, because they got Garnett. Thanks for making my point for me.

I thought your point was that the Celtics were an underdog team that wasn't picked to compete in spite of Garnett acquisition? You'd better get your untruths straightened out.

You can always tell when Kevin knows he's in trouble: he unloosens a barrage of one-line responses to cover his retreat.

Yeah, I remember those guys were the other four starters on the Celtics' best teams.

Lohaus and Roberts started when McHale was out with an ankle injury and they both played well, much better than you would have expected them to.

You can always tell when Kevin knows he's in trouble: he unloosens a barrage of one-line responses to cover his retreat.

You're the one in trouble. You don't know jackshit about basketball or how team dynamics works.

I'm sure that the U.S. military in response to Mogadishu could simply have levelled the entire city (well, to the extent that it wasn't already in ruinous shape) except that that would have wrecked America's world image while accomplishing nothing constructive from any standpoint.

Actually I've met someone who was there- that's precisely what he and his comrades wanted to do.


I'm not sure it wouldn't have accomplished anything constructive.
It's quite possible that Germany and Japan were successfully occupied and transformed into functioning democracies because they were totally crushed- there was no question in the minds of the rational German and Japanese people that they no longer had a "military option" [and there weren't enough remaining irrationals to make a difference]

Also what was accomplished for Somalia when one warlord managed to run off the UN/US?

I thought your point was that the Celtics were an underdog team that wasn't picked to compete in spite of Garnett acquisition?

Well, that wasn't my point at all but thanks for playing. My point is, and has always been, that Garnett is the main reason for the biggest turnaround in NBA history. And that, despite basically having to trade the team to get Garnett, they got way better anyway.

And that there's no way Kobe can match what Garnett has done this year.

This is surreal.

Otherwise rational (and frankly very intelligent posters) acually discussing armed insurgency in the United States as if it's a possiblity. Seriously, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who could have this kind of conversation and maintain a straight face anywhere else in the industrialized world.

Even in the darkest days of the FLQ movement in 1970, even with Trudeau instituting the War Measures Act, I think an armed insurgency of the populace was as unlikely as the Jays winning the AL East.

There are some aspects of American culture that will forever elude me

Otherwise rational (and frankly very intelligent posters) acually discussing armed insurgency in the United States as if it's a possiblity.

Does that really surprise you?

We have had people here saying what Bonds did hitting 73 homeruns was really nothing special and was basically duplicated by Champ Summers and Lee Lacy.

This is surreal.

Otherwise rational (and frankly very intelligent posters) acually discussing armed insurgency in the United States as if it's a possiblity. Seriously, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who could have this kind of conversation and maintain a straight face anywhere else in the industrialized world.

It's nice to see someone else notice the Emperor's nice new wardrobe.

There are some aspects of American culture that will forever elude me.

Yeah, but it's still a lot of fun being caught up in it. You get all sorts of interesting POV's

Well, that wasn't my point at all but thanks for playing. my point is, and has always been, that Garnett is the main reason for the biggest turnaround in NBA history. And that, despite basically having to trade the team to get Garnett, they got way better anyway.

Who the #### cares about trading away pieces of the last place 2007 Celtics?

Your previous point: "Nearly everyone, including me, didn't think Garnett had the talent around him to compete. You look at the bench the Celtics had this year, and the two other starters, Rondo and Perkins, and every one of them, every last one, was a big question mark." You were clearly wrong.

Your old point also included the claim that Kobe Bryant was a "selfish prick," claiming, "There's no reason the same thing [happening to the 2007 Celtics] couldn't have occurred with the Lakers back them." Of COURSE it couldn't happen because the Lakers were playing Smush Parker and Kwame Brown, in much the same way that Garnett couldn't make it happen with the 2005-2006 Timberwolves... unless you want to claim that Garnett was a selfish prick the previous three seasons?

Your new point ignores a healthy Paul Pierce and the addition of Ray Allen as well as one of the best benches in the league, but I know you're doing it on purpose.

Bird was able to do it with guys like Fred Roberts, Rick Carlisle, David Thirdkill and Brad Lohaus.

I felt like going through a few of these guys, just because I'm bored at work. Fred Roberts played two seasons in Boston, where he had an EFG of 51.5 and 48.8%. For his career, his EFG% was 50.8%. Just looking at the rest of his numbers, it doesn't really look like his two seasons in Boston were all that different from his career averages. Roberts did struggle the year before he came to Boston (44.6 EFG), but the next 5 years after that he was over 49%, including 2 seasons better than anything he did in Boston.

Carlisle is kind of hard, since he played only 188 games, and all but 31 of them were with Boston. For his career, he had an EFG% of 43.5; the one year he had any kind of time with another team, a season in NY, he shot it at 47.8. Of course, soon after he left the Celtics he was out of the league, but he was pretty horrible in 2 of his 3 seasons in Boston, so I don't think he really proves anything.

David Thirdkill played about 460 minutes for Boston. The year before he came to the Celtics he played for three different teams, and total put up a 52.6 EFG%. In his first season in Boston he was at 49.1%, and then 41.7%, which was a career low.

Lohaus is the most obvious, but still not a slam dunk. He played one season with Bird, in which he put up a EFG% of 50.2. The next season (Bird was hurt) he split time with Boston and the Kings, where his EFG was 43.3. (It was 43.3 in both stops.) But starting with the next season, he went 49.5, 47.1, 52.9, 53, 44.5, 55.1, 55.1. So I don't know; you wouldn't expect him to be as good as a rookie as he was in his prime, and the sharp drop he had in his second season, which was Bird free, is pretty startling, but he became a pretty solid player without Bird.


Now, I know EFG% isn't the only way to measure players, it was just the quickest, and at least to me, when I think of a star player making teammates better the most obvious way is in distributing the ball and getting them better looks, putting them in a position where they can succeed. It isn't the only way.

And not to say that Bird didn't make other players better, but these guys, at least some of them, might have been a stretch.

"Look, you really think the Celtics this year, with the complement of players Garnett has, is any different than the ones kobe had after Shaq left?"

This has probably been mentioned in the preceding 50 responses, none of which I have read: But Paul Pierce is one of the 10-12 best players in the NBA. So, yes, even discounting Jesus Shuttlesworth, KG's teammates blow away what Bryant had to work with.

"Bird was able to do it with guys like Fred Roberts, Rick Carlisle, David Thirdkill and Brad Lohaus."

Pornstar Stache was one of the greatest players in the history of the game. However, this is a completely stupid statement, Kevin. Bird had a very good guard in Dennis Johnson. And he had Hall of Famers in Marijuana Parrish and Kevin McHale. Add to them, Bird had a great, great outside shooter in Danny Ainge. His teams were not as deep as Magic's Lakers, and for that reason the Hick from French Lick didn't win as much as Magic did. But to overlook the stars around Bird is just stupid.

Your old point also included the claim that Kobe Bryant was a "selfish prick

That one still stands. And always will.

Your previous point: "Nearly everyone, including me, didn't think Garnett had the talent around him to compete. You look at the bench the Celtics had this year, and the two other starters, Rondo and Perkins, and every one of them, every last one, was a big question mark." You were clearly wrong.

If you're going to talk like a moron, there's really no point in continuing this discussion.

Lohaus and Roberts started when McHale was out with an ankle injury and they both played well, much better than you would have expected them to.

Lohaus had his best season with Boston as a rookie. He started only 4 games. He did start 15 games for Boston the next year, but A) he was worse that season than he was the year before, and B)the player he was replacing was Bird, not McHale.

This, however, does lend credence to your argument, because Lohaus was a better player in his rookie year when he played with Bird, than he was the next year, without him. But he was really no better than he was in the years following that.

But I don't know why you said Roberts played better than you would expect. It looks like he played pretty much exactly like you would expect him to.

And not to say that Bird didn't make other players better, but these guys, at least some of them, might have been a stretch.

And it should be noted that these guys weren't the starters, and certainly the guys getting heavy minutes in the playoffs — none of them averaged more than 15 minutes per game in the postseason with the Celtics. Lohaus and Thirdkill didn't even get five.

Your previous point: "Nearly everyone, including me, didn't think Garnett had the talent around him to compete. You look at the bench the Celtics had this year, and the two other starters, Rondo and Perkins, and every one of them, every last one, was a big question mark." You were clearly wrong.

If you're going to talk like a moron, there's really no point in continuing this discussion.

You're a liar and a jerk. Let's move on.

You claimed that preseason polls would show the Celtics as being underdogs, saying, "Nearly everyone, including me, didn't think Garnett had the talent around him to compete." The preseason polls from NBA.com and ESPN clearly show otherwise. At least admit you're clearly wrong on this.

And it should be noted that these guys weren't the starters

No. Actually, it shouldn't.

It shouldn't be noted at all because it makes no difference at all.

Pornstar Stache was one of the greatest players in the history of the game. However, this is a completely stupid statement, Kevin. Bird had a very good guard in Dennis Johnson. And he had Hall of Famers in Marijuana Parrish and Kevin McHale. Add to them, Bird had a great, great outside shooter in Danny Ainge. His teams were not as deep as Magic's Lakers, and for that reason the Hick from French Lick didn't win as much as Magic did. But to overlook the stars around Bird is just stupid.

Another one who is having an imaginary conversation with someone else named kevin.

Oh yeah
American culture is a lot of fun
Hell, it's why I'm such a huge baseball fan.

And a lot of it is so similar to my everyday experiences here in Canada. That's why it's so jolting when I come across something so bizzare.

Not many Canadians like America, but we have no problem co-operating together to produce stellar comedy or MVP basketballers.

Or maybe they're just better at masking it than the French

EDIT: that was horribly worded, I shoud clarify that I'm Canadian

I've met a fair number of Canadians in the last few years, and Bush is almost universally derided. He's thought of as crazy and dangerous. Canadians I know don't understand how we elected him once, let alone twice, since he was so clearly venal, ignorant, and hopelessly unqualified--but that we did spreads some of the contempt for Bush onto Americans generally. Americans are also often thought of as undisciplined (this stems from seeing so many overweight Americans), and a bit backwards, socially and intellectually.

Hey--Don't blame me, I'm just reporting the news.

It shouldn't be noted at all because it makes no difference at all.

It absolutely should be noticed. The four guys you mentioned were bit players, with guys like McHale and Parrish (and later Reggie Lewis) playing next to Bird. Parker and Brown averaged over 30 minutes a game over two seasons for the Lakers, and L.A. didn't anyone approaching the level of McHale or Parrish playing along side Bryant.

You claimed that preseason polls would show the Celtics as being underdogs

Do a textsearch and find me a passage where I used the term "underdog".

"Another one who is having an imaginary conversation with someone else named kevin."

Perhaps, Kevin, you should respond to your previous stupid statements. That way, "someone else named Kevin" could see what inanity "Kevin" is posting in the name of Kevin. Certainly, I am not saying you are stupid. I am just addressing the comments of this imposter "Kevin."

Do a textsearch and find me a passage where I used the term "underdog".

I shortened from the phrase: "didn't think Garnett had the talent around him to compete." Move on to your next lie.

Even in the darkest days of the FLQ movement in 1970, even with Trudeau instituting the War Measures Act, I think an armed insurgency of the populace was as unlikely as the Jays winning the AL East.

I don't know about that, the The Mohawk Defense Of Kanasetake came pretty close to being an armed insurrection.

Also in the US, prior to Timothy McVeigh you were getting these self called "militia" groups arming themselves, some armed camps up in the sticks in Idaho and whatnot, of course after McVeigh most members/participants in these type groups quit...

Softball, are you dense or something? Why are you having a conversation about a point I never made?

Did I ever say that those other players, McHale etc., weren't good players? Carefully reread the thread and show me a place where I wrote those players, Parish, McHale, Johnson, weren't good players.

Perhaps, Kevin, you should respond to your previous stupid statements.

Read 867. Then reread 867. Then we can talk again.

You have some good things to say, but that was a pretty bad lead in, you might want to say. "numerical superiority alone doesn't necessarily win battles"- because a great many battles and wars in history has been decided by what you claim is irrelevant.

Concede.

Actually I've met someone who was there- that's precisely what he and his comrades wanted to do.


I'm not sure it wouldn't have accomplished anything constructive.
It's quite possible that Germany and Japan were successfully occupied and transformed into functioning democracies because they were totally crushed- there was no question in the minds of the rational German and Japanese people that they no longer had a "military option" [and there weren't enough remaining irrationals to make a difference]

Agree w/you and AG. Chesterton said something like, "Capitalism is a beast that grows in a desert."

At least admit you're clearly wrong on this.

Good luck with that.

I've met a fair number of Canadians in the last few years, and Bush is almost universally derided.

That's pretty funny, because I know a fair number of Canadians too (plus I'm married to one), and more than a few have pulled me aside to let me know (in secret) that they like Bush and think the War on Terror is just dandy...

they may be telling me what they think I want to hear, but since I voted against Bush and think he is/was

clearly venal, ignorant, and hopelessly unqualified

...

Do a textsearch and find me a passage where I used the term "underdog".

True, but you did say

Look, you really think the Celtics this year, with the complement of players Garnett has, is any different than the ones kobe had after Shaq left?

Allen and Pierce are better than anything Kobe had to work with after Shaq left. The first year after Shaq left, the minutes leader for the Lakers was Chucky Atkins, followed by Caron Butler and Odom. The last two were decent players at the time (Butler has become a very good player) but they aren't in the same league as Pierce and Allen, particularly Pierce.

The next year, the minutes leader (after Kobe) was Odom, who was still a decent player. Followed by Smush Parker. Smush Parker was third on the team in minutes; what would he be, 8th in the Celtics rotation this year?

The next year, same thing. Smush was second on the team in minutes. (And for what its worth, Parker was much worse this year, without Kobe.)

Garnett is a better player than Kobe, no question, but you can't seriously suggest the teams Kobe was playing with when Shaq left had the same kind of talent than the Celtics do this year. This year, yes, and the Lakers had the best record in the West this year.

I also noticed in my travels that Canada in many ways is where the U.S. was in the late 1970s. There are chain stores, but they don't completely dominate the retail economy, nor have they destroyed the character or economy of most towns. The population density is low enough that cities aren't absurdly crowded. It's possible to work four days a week in Montreal, at a job that pays $10 an hour, and if you're willing to share a pleasant two-bedroom apartment in a pleasant neighborhood, and do without a car, you can live comfortably.

"Bird was able to do it with guys like Fred Roberts, Rick Carlisle, David Thirdkill and Brad Lohaus."

Yeah, on the 1927 Yankees, Ruth was able to do it with guys like Cedric Durst, Benny Bengough, Julie Wera and Walter Beall.

Kevin has no interest in extending to Bryant any respect prior to this season whatsoever. He and I have trod that ground into the, er, ground.

That's pretty funny, because I know a fair number of Canadians too (plus I'm married to one), and more than a few have pulled me aside to let me know (in secret) that they like Bush and think the War on Terror is just dandy...

Interesting. That differs so much from what I've experienced--most of the Canadians I know are Quebecois--could that explain some of the difference?

Did I ever say that those other players, McHale etc., weren't good players? Carefully reread the thread and show me a place where I wrote those players, Parish, McHale, Johnson, weren't good players.

No, you claimed that Bryant should have been able to make a team that started Smush Parker and Kwame Brown into a great team: "There's no reason the same thing couldn't have occurred with the Lakers back them. But Kobe was too much a selfish prick to allow it to happen."

When I replied that Bryant couldn't turn Parker into something he wasn't, you replied: "Bird was able to do it with guys like Fred Roberts, Rick Carlisle, David Thirdkill and Brad Lohaus." This was dishonesty on your part; Bird didn't have to do it with guys like Roberts, et al — none of them averaged 15 minutes a night while Bryant was playing with Parker and Brown for over 30 minutes a game. Moreover, Parker and Brown had the best years of their career while playing with Bryant, not something you'd expect from that "selfish prick."

Back to you, insane fantasy troll.

At least admit you're clearly wrong on this.

Good luck with that.

He has been more clearly caught in a mistake or contradiction before, and he's never yet conceded

His obstinancy on never ever being wrong has gone long past being annoying, curved around and has become almost admirable in some warped sense

Yeah, on the 1927 Yankees, Ruth was able to do it with guys like Cedric Durst, Benny Bengough, Julie Wera and Walter Beall.

Very funny.

BTW: I don't think it's "no question" that Garnett's better than Kobe. I think it's a close question. I'd probably decide for KG, but KB is pretty damned close.

most of the Canadians I know are Quebecois--could that explain some of the difference?

could be, the ones I know are from Toronto or thereabouts, and a few are Eastern European immigrants (and all immigrants I've ever met who once lived under communism almost universally love Ronald Reagan and the Republican party- even those who live in Canada)

Obamamania is even scaring liberals.

Yeah, if anti-Americanism is a hobby in Canada generally, it is an obssession in Quebec.

I live on a university campus, so my experience may be tinged as well...one thing to keep in mind is that there is a long running steam of anti-Americanism in Canada dating back to the American Revolution. One of the most tried and true techniques for politicians to disparage their opponents is to claim they are too closely tied to America. Different administrations vary the degree to which you can rely on anti-Americanism, but it's always there.

One qualification is that in some border areas (the Niagara Peninsula is the one I'm most familiar with) people have a close connection to America and are generally more sympathetic to americans

BTW: I don't think it's "no question" that Garnett's better than Kobe. I think it's a close question. I'd probably decide for KG, but KB is pretty damned close.

I think it's an open question as to who the "best" player is, with the answer changing on a nightly basis and depending on what that player's context is. There's a short list, but I'd say that Garnett, Bryant, Duncan, James, Paul, and Nowitzki are all on it, and you can make a good argument for any of them.

Edit: And that list doesn't include guys like Yao Ming, McGrady, Wade (when healthy) and a half-dozen other terrific players.

Agree w/all but Dirk. I think Dirk's second tier (if that group's the first tier).

I also agree (w/whomever said this above) that Manu is seriously underrated.

BTW: I don't think it's "no question" that Garnett's better than Kobe. I think it's a close question. I'd probably decide for KG, but KB is pretty damned close.

Garnett is one of the best defensive players in the league. (For reference, he lead the league in defensive rebounding % 4 years in a row.) Minnesota finished 21st in the league in defensive rating last year; that doesn't seem too impressive, but look at the rest of the that team; Ricky Davis, Mark Blount, Mike James, Craig Smith, Randy Foye. They didn't finish 21st because of Ricky Davis and Mike James. When Garnett was off the floor, they were the worst defensive team in basketball.

PER isn't the end all be all, but Garnett has a slightly better career PER, and that doesn't include a lot of the value he gets on the defensive end, and I think he has a lot more defensive value than Kobe. I also am biased towards big men.

"I also am biased towards big men."



Who isn't! Grrrrrrrrrrrowl!

"There's a short list, but I'd say that Garnett, Bryant, Duncan, James, Paul, and Nowitzki are all on it, and you can make a good argument for any of them."

Yet another instance when Manu Ginobili is overlooked. If you see enough Spurs games -- I am not a San Antonio fan; the sucko Sacto Kings are my passion -- you would list Ginobili in your short list. And you probably would not put Duncan in it, this year. Personally, I think Kobe is the most gifted player. But because Lebron does so much with such dreck around him, I give Lebron the nod for this honor. KG, IMO, is 3rd.

Dirk is awesome; I also think he is a better player than Kobe, though I don't think he is as good as Duncan or Lebron or Garnett. Paul has been a better player this year, but it may be too soon to rate him among the best players in the league.

Manu is amazing as well; someone above (Robin?) said something about how Manu isn't underrated and he is considered part of the SA big three; that right there is evidence he is underrated. SA has the big two, and then Parker.

I think Pop is doing a good job keeping his minutes down as well; he is already 30 and he plays a high energy game. They can be one of the best teams in the conference with him playing 30 a night because they have Duncan, so keeping him fresh for the playoffs is a good idea.

More proof of the greatness of Duncan; the Spurs have finished in the top 3 in the league in defense every year they have had Duncan. They've turned the rest of the roster over 100%, and they've never finished lower than third.

Edited to respond to:

"Yet another instance when Manu Ginobili is overlooked. If you see enough Spurs games -- I am not a San Antonio fan; the sucko Sacto Kings are my passion -- you would list Ginobili in your short list. And you probably would not put Duncan in it, this year."

I wouldn't go this far. Duncan has played a few more games, 350 more minutes, and still has a PER a hair higher than Ginobili. And he provides a lot more defensive value. But that is more evidence of how good Duncan is than a knock on Ginobili, who has probably been one of the 10 best players in the league this year. But he ain't Duncan.

I think Duncan, who is a Center no matter what anyone says, is a top 5 Center all time at worst. Thoughts?

Ray Allen hasn't been THAT hurt this year. He hasn't missed that many games, and he's played a lot of minutes.

To repeat: Not a one of those insurrections was fought with merely the type of arms possessed by private persons in the United States.

Well, the Finns used guns, Molotov cocktails, knowledge of the terrain, the weather, and captured weapons.

What? The 1940 Winter War? Where the nation of the USSR invaded the nation of Finland? And won?
That's your example of a small arms insurrection defeating a government power?

Yeah, the Finns put up a fight - but they had machine guns, morters etc. Just not very many of them. Oh, and the Russians had just purged their officer corps of pretty much everyone above the level of 1st Lt.

Yet another instance when Manu Ginobili is overlooked. If you see enough Spurs games -- I am not a San Antonio fan; the sucko Sacto Kings are my passion -- you would list Ginobili in your short list. And you probably would not put Duncan in it, this year.

I'd but Manu on the second list — not exactly a diss, as I'm looking more towards career performance (which is why Duncan's on the list).

Ignoring scoring, Kobe Bryant is the only guy who's in the top five in assists, rebounds, blocks, and steals per game at the shooting guard position. The only other guy who's even close? Manu Ginobili. Manu's one of the top four SGs in the league, along with Bryant, McGrady and Wade. That's good company.

I think Duncan, who is a Center no matter what anyone says, is a top 5 Center all time at worst. Thoughts?

A tough argument. In no particular order, the five greatest Cs of all time: Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Kareem, Russell. Who does Duncan kick out of that group? I have no idea.

This was dishonesty on your part

Softball, you'd save everyone a lot of time if you limited yourself to pointing instances of kevin's honesty. If you try to point out all of his dishonest comments, this thread will still be going strong long after the Lakers have beaten the Celtics in the finals.

One qualification is that in some border areas (the Niagara Peninsula is the one I'm most familiar with) people have a close connection to America and are generally more sympathetic to americans

I lived in Buffalo for a few years, I have to tell you, most Canadians who live between Buffalo and Toronto are culturally indistinguishable from the Americans who live in the same general area.

Softball, you'd save everyone a lot of time if you limited yourself to pointing instances of kevin's honesty

My projects are finished. I have nothing else to do today.

Oh - and here is a gun law for you:

If you buy a gun, and it kills someone it's your murder rap. Not as an accessory.

Kid finds gun and shoots self? Murder.
Gun stolen by hood and kills 7/11 cashier? Murder.
You shoot someone breaking into your house? Murder - manslaughter if the guy happened to be armed.

I don't think I would allow resale/gifts of firearms either.

You want to protect your house? Get a dog.

Gun stolen by hood and kills 7/11 cashier? Murder.
You shoot someone breaking into your house? Murder - manslaughter if the guy happened to be armed.

I'm a liberal and even I can't go that far.

I'm a liberal and even I can't go that far.

so what you're saying is that you're soft on crime?

Ray Allen hasn't been THAT hurt this year. He hasn't missed that many games, and he's played a lot of minutes.

Watch when Allen takes it to the basket. He can't finish anymore. He's still good on spot-ups but his ankles are giving him trouble putting the ball tot he floor.

so what you're saying is that you're soft on crime?

You see, I really don't know if you read post 896 and are trying to be funny, or if you read my post out of context and think that I'm opposed to charging those who shoot 7/1 clerks with murder...