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?

Walton bumps Hakeem. Duncan certainly deserves a seat at the table. Exactly where, i have no idea.

What was I thinking? Walton was a Celtic. Of course Walton bumps Hakeem!

Doesn't walton have a short career to make that table?

About 20,000 points short of Hakeem, sure, but he had the right uniform on.

Oh - and here is a [brainless] gun law for you:

You shoot someone breaking into your house? Murder - manslaughter if the guy happened to be armed.

What happens if I just kill the guy with my bare hands?

About 20,000 points short of Hakeem, sure, but he had the right uniform on.

Well it simply depends on how you weigh different criteria. See, I think the top five centers of all time were Kareem, Walton, Love, Zidek, and Petruska, but your mileage may vary.

This is pretty funny: one of the people the Clinton campaign put in their "Obama is talking down to real Pennsylvanians" ad was a New Jersey resident until about 6 minutes ago. Voted for Hillary in the NJ primary in Feb. and isn't even registered in PA.

Clinton Commercial guy

Softball-Playing Human Refuses to Be Walked Posted: April 16, 2008 at 05:27 PM (#2746841)

What was I thinking? Walton was a Celtic. Of course Walton bumps Hakeem!

It may have been the shortest peak in history, but from 1976-78 (i.e. after and before his major injuries) Walton bumped just about every bleeping one of them.

You want to talk about leading a bunch of journeymen to a title: I'd like to see any other center accomplish that with Maurice Lucas, Lionel Hollins, Johnny Gross, Dave Twardzik, and a bench led by Johnny Davis and Lloyd Neal. Lucas was a solid player, but the others never did a damn thing without Walton weaving them into an ever-moving unit. People who never saw him at his best can't possibly realize just how great he was. In terms of making everyone around him better, among centers only Russell compares.

And on those terms, Chamberlain's not even on the map. With the exception of a couple of his last Warriors years, he always was surrounded with first rate talent. And in those handful of years that he wasn't, his team tanked. As a one on one player, he's unsurpassed. But as a team contributor, he's the most overrated player in history.

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?

Afghanistan vis-a-vis the Soviets and the Iraqi insurgency had already been provided as examples in the discussion. I offered up Finland in that vein. It's an example of an outnumbered people fighting off an invader with comparatively primitive weaponry.

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.

"Not very many of them" being the operative. The core of their resistance comprised, for the most part what I listed above. The fighting at the Mannerheim Line was a pretty miraculous stand in this regard.

As for the Soviets winning, well if you call it a victory for them, then it was Pyrrhic in the extreme. They got slaughtered and wound up with, what, maybe 5% of Finnish territory and industrial capacity for their troubles? Yes, the purge had already occurred, but they still had the Finns drastically outnumbered and out-gunned.

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.

This is so out there it makes me wonder whether you're an NRA operative seeking to discredit the other side.

This is pretty funny: one of the people the Clinton campaign put in their "Obama is talking down to real Pennsylvanians" ad was a New Jersey resident until about 6 minutes ago. Voted for Hillary in the NJ primary in Feb. and isn't even registered in PA.

Maybe that explains why Gallup's Obama numbers in Pennsylvania haven't budged since that great big controversy began, while Hillary's have dropped two points---They haven't polled New Jersey voters.

Parker and Brown averaged over 30 minutes a game over two seasons for the Lakers

alright, now I have time to answer this properly.

First of all, this is the worst kind of cherry-picking. Neither player was on the team the first year after Shaq left.

You really trying to tell me Caron Butler and Chucky Atkins and Lamar Odom weren't good players? Butler leaving the Lakers, he was held in such low esteem, he got traded for Brown. Then he became a good player once getting away from Kobe, improving in jsut about every phase with the Wizards.

Thee was plenty to work with there. They should not have been a losing team.

Doesn't walton have a short career to make that table?

I don't care. Before he was hurt, he was the best player I ever saw. His overwhelming peak forces him onto the list.

I don't care. Before he was hurt, he was the best player I ever saw. His overwhelming peak forces him on the list.

So you are disqualifying yourself from this? It's like putting Hal Trosky in as the greatest 1B (or Josh Gibson as top catcher).

"Obamamania is even scaring liberals Hillary-supporting concern trolls."

Fixed!

People like that writer don't understand that a lot of the Hillary hate comes not from her being a woman, but from her being a fake and a sellout and a race-baiter. If a man did the things that she did, he would've bled just as much male Dem support as she did, and it would've finished him because he wouldn't have been able to wave his uterus and rally reflexive '60s/'70s feminists.

Also, I liked this piece of apparently unironic phrasing the author spun out: "a growing number of young women are struggling to describe a gut conviction that there is something dark and funky, and probably not so female-friendly, running below the frantic fanaticism of their Obama-loving compatriots." Ha!

About 20,000 points short of Hakeem, sure, but he had the right uniform on.

Your constant and continuous focus on points highlights the fact you are unqualified to be having this discussion.

As for the Soviets winning, well if you call it a victory for them, then it was Pyrrhic in the extreme. They got slaughtered and wound up with, what, maybe 5% of Finnish territory and industrial capacity for their troubles?

That 5% saved Leningrad. Not sure what the strategic implications would have been had the Germans ultimately taken the city, probably none, but without that little breathing room achieved by the Winter War, no way the Sovs hold out.

It may have been the shortest peak in history, but from 1976-78 (i.e. after and before his major injuries) Walton bumped just about every bleeping one of them.

The talent level in the NBA those three years was at an all-time low. THose are the NBAs War years. Teams were going broke (etc.)

So you are disqualifying yourself from this? It's like putting Hal Trosky in as the greatest 1B (or Josh Gibson as top catcher).

Hal Trosky was never considered the best player who ever lived. Gibson was, at least by some observers so maybe Gibson isn't a bad comp.

It would be more like if Ruth got hurt after his 59 homer season and was never the same.

Well it simply depends on how you weigh different criteria. See, I think the top five centers of all time were Kareem, Walton, Love, Zidek, and Petruska, but your mileage may vary.

No Jack Haley?

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.

I do watch. Just about every game. He's been fine. His game is mostly outside. When he gets a lane, he takes it to the basket just fine.

About 20,000 points short of Hakeem, sure, but he had the right uniform on.

Your constant and continuous focus on points highlights the fact you are unqualified to be having this discussion.

To be fair, Olajuwon's also got a bunch of rebounds and blocks, too. I also talked about other things in the Manu discussion, but that would ruin your whole indignant thing.

Part of being great has to be the ability to stay on the floor. Hakeem was a great and durable player for a very long time, while Walton was durable never. I absolutely believe when people tell me Walton was the greatest they'd ever seen, but I don't believe you can be the "best player ever" conversation while missing 20%-40% of your team's games every year.

kevin, guess who Cedric Maxwell calls the best player he ever played with.

I absolutely believe when people tell me Walton was the greatest they'd ever seen,

I also believe the old guys in Boston when they say Fred Lynn was the best CF they ever saw- even if only for 2-3 years.
I think they're wrong, but I believe they are honest.

You guys are way off, the top 5 centres are:

Gretzky, Lemieux, Beliveau, Esposito and Yzerman!

First of all, this is the worst kind of cherry-picking. Neither player was on the team the first year after Shaq left.

You really trying to tell me Caron Butler and Chucky Atkins and Lamar Odom weren't good players? Butler leaving the Lakers, he was held in such low esteem, he got traded for Brown. Then he became a good player once getting away from Kobe, improving in jsut about every phase with the Wizards.

Thee was plenty to work with there. They should not have been a losing team.

But that is different than what you said. You said it was the same kind of talent Garnett had in this year in Boston. The first year Shaq was gone, Chucky Atkins was the team leader in minutes. He's a decent player, but he isn't close to being in the same league as Pierce. Butler is now a very good player; his first year in LA he was ok. Maybe Kobe could have gotten more out of him, but the Butler was a better player in LA than he was in Miami. Should we be surprised that Butler got better as he got older?

Maybe they shouldn't have been a losing team, but that doesn't mean the talent is as good as the Celtics sans KG. I wouldn't have traded Butler and Odom and Atkins for Pierce and Allen (from the Boston POV).


As for the top 5 C, Walton was great but he was too injured. I think Duncan, on a career basis, can bump Shaq. Shaq at his best may be the single most unstoppable player ever (maybe) but how long did that period really last? Honestly, I think you can make at least a decent argument for Duncan #1, not saying its true, but you can. (Well, maybe not over Wilt.) Russell is likely the best defensive player ever, but really how far behind was Duncan? And Duncan is a better offensive player. I think Duncan was better than the Dream.

I happen to think Duncan is one of the 3 or 4 most valuable defensive players that ever lived. As I said before, San Antonio has been in the top 3 in defense every year they had Duncan, and they have turned over the rest of the roster, including losing Robinson, a pretty good defender in his own right. His offense is probably behind Hakeem, and definitely behind Shaq and Wilt, but I think he picks up a ton of defensive value on all of them. It's also hard to make this argument, because the guy is only about to turn 32 and really isn't showing signs of slowing down. But he has 4 titles now, and could easily pick up another 2 or 3 before he's done.

The talent level in the NBA those three years was at an all-time low. Those are the NBAs War years. Teams were going broke (etc.)

The financial situation had nothing to do with the talent level, Chris. There has always been talent. Walton's team crushed a Sixers team with Erving, McGinnis, Collins, Jones, Bibby, and Dawkins. they had a ridiculous amount of talent.

Additionally, the ABA was contracted by 2 teams, so in 1977 there was an acute infusion of talent that beefed up the squads of a number of teams.

1977 might have been the most competitive year ever.

No Jack Haley?

Another criteria is that you must have at least played in an elite eight.

Your constant and continuous focus on points highlights the fact you are unqualified to be having this discussion.

20,000 points is eight full seasons of 30 point games. But yeah, his argument was obviously that simply having more points is what matters. What typical douchey kevin statement (I'm assuming this was a kevin comment - I can only read the quoted text of others since he's ignored).

When he gets a lane, he takes it to the basket just fine.

You're not watching closely enough. He's lost a half step and he doesn't finish cleanly anymore.

kevin, guess who Cedric Maxwell calls the best player he ever played with.

I don't know. Who?

Should we be surprised that Butler got better as he got older?

Not so much surprised, but you should ignore that fact if it hurts your argument. Makes it easier to argue.

The talent level in the NBA those three years was at an all-time low. THose are the NBAs War years. Teams were going broke (etc.)

Wrong, wrong, a thousand times wrong. The Blazer championship year was the first year after the NBA-ABA merger so, by definition, the talent level was higher than in the time the ABA was siphoning it away from the NBA.

The economics of the league weren't the greatest, but that's the public's fault, not the league's. There isn't a bigger incongruity between aesthetic appeal and public interest in the history of public entertainment than the one we find in professional basketball games in the 1970s.

Especially so in the ABA. Pictures of Erving, Gervin, and Thompson soaring and finger-rolling amidst an all-but-empty arena shock the conscience in the same way that Cubist paintings must have in 1913.

Well, maybe not over Wilt

Russell was better than Wilt.

The financial situation had nothing to do with the talent level, Chris. There has always been talent. Walton's team crushed a Sixers team with Erving, McGinnis, Collins, Jones, Bibby, and Dawkins. they had a ridiculous amount of talent.

And Free and Kobe's Dad.

First of all, this is the worst kind of cherry-picking. Neither player was on the team the first year after Shaq left. You really trying to tell me Caron Butler and Chucky Atkins and Lamar Odom weren't good players?

But that's not the season I referenced, was it? I wrote: The 2005-2007 Lakers were, apart from Kobe and Odom, a collection of not-yets and never-will-bes. Butler and Atkins weren't on those teams. But look at that team anyways: they were 24-19 when Tomjanovich suddenly resigned, at which point the team collapsed. Kobe was out with a right ankle injury at the time. The team without him went 6-8. He came back, led the team in scoring, rebounding, and assists, but pretty much just fell apart around him — worst defensive team in the league.

EDITED TO ADD: Atkins was getting regularly beaten off the dribble, and the Lakers had no interior defense. Then Odom got hurt and missed the last 16 games of the season, forcing the Lakers to use Medvedenko or Grant or even Butler and Devan George at the PF position. It was ugly. Can't blame Bryant for that.

And as for cherry-picking, you're attempting to look at the one season after Shaq while trying to dodge the two more recent seasons with both Brown and Parker, both of whom spent a lot more time on the Lakers than Butler.

Butler leaving the Lakers, he was held in such low esteem, he got traded for Brown. Then he became a good player once getting away from Kobe, improving in jsut about every phase with the Wizards.

Butler had his best individual season up to that point with Kobe. Trading him for peanuts is Mitch Kupchak's fault, not Bryant's.

There isn't a bigger incongruity between aesthetic appeal and public interest in the history of public entertainment than the one we find in professional basketball games in the 1970s.

No truer words were ever uttered, Sugar.

But look at that team anyways: they were 24-19 when Tomjanovich suddenly resigned, at which point the team collapsed.

How does the assigning of any team success to Tomjanovich's coaching recommend Kobe? It's another nail in the coffin on Kobe.

He came back, led the team in scoring, rebounding, and assists, but pretty much just fell apart around him — worst defensive team in the league.

So, Kobe came back, the team fell apart, Kobe took all the shots and hogged the ball, they became the worst defensive team in the league, and yet you see no relationship between these entwined and related events?

How does the assigning of any team success to Tomjanovich's coaching recommend Kobe? It's another nail in the coffin on Kobe.

Kobe not actually playing when the collapse began had something to do with it, and Odom going on the DL to finish the season had something to do with it.

Note the edit to my last post: Atkins was getting regularly beaten off the dribble, and the Lakers had no interior defense. Then Odom got hurt and missed the last 16 games of the season, forcing the Lakers to use Medvedenko or Grant or even Butler and Devan George at the PF position. It was ugly. Can't blame Bryant for that — 3rd team NBA defense.

so, Kobe came back, the team fell apart, Kobe took all the shots and hogged the ball, they became the worst defensive team in the league, and yet you see no relationship between these entwined and related events?

You don't ####### read. Odom: Hurt. Atkins not guarding people. Team using a 6-7, 217 lb. player to guard Tim Duncan. At what point do you stop blaming one player and starting looking at the organization as a whole? Why do you think blaming the BEST player for a team's failures is a better idea than blaming the WORST players? You're so dishonest in your arguments, I have to believe you do it just to argue, because you can't possibly be this dishonest.

Moreover, why don't you transfer this same argument to the Timberwolves, 2004-2007? Tell us why Kevin Garnett couldn't elevate the players around him.

Edit: Or for that matter, Paul Pierce, 2005-2007.

If I say it's Bird, you'll say he's intelligent. If i it's Hakeem, you'll say he's an idiot. So I'm not going to tell you.

You're not watching closely enough.

How dare you? Who are you? Shooter Flatch?

At what point do you stop blaming one player and starting looking at the organization as a whole?

Because you're trying to tell me he's a superstar. Kobe was tired of being Shaq's wingman and wanted to be the man.

But he lacked the maturity and the emotional wherewithall to be the man on a good team. Then he whined that he wasn't on a good team, after chasing the guy who he owed his success out of town (actually, he chased both guys he owed his success but that's another story).

The guy came up small in both post-season he entered post-Shaq. Finally, this year, he had the collossal gall to ask to be traded.

If I was Kupchak, I would have strangled him long ago.

He's not getting to the finals you know. The Lakers are going to get knocked off in the west. Winning 56 games is nice but hardly earth-shattering.

Apropos to nothing, Simmons is starting to really annoy me about his ripping on Kirilenko. Andrei's been fine this year, and been a solid contributor to a good team.

Or for that matter, Paul Pierce, 2005-2007.

He did, as was evidenced by the team's collapse last year when he got hurt.

I can't comment on Garnett. I wasn't close enough to the situation. But it looked from afar as a total organizational meltdown that had nothing to do with Garnett. L.A.'s meltdown had everything to do with Kobe.

How dare you? Who are you? Shooter Flatch?

Jimmy Chitwood.

The talent level in the NBA those three years was at an all-time low. Those are the NBAs War years. Teams were going broke (etc.)

My bad. I should have written the 1976-77 and 1977-78 seasons, which were post-merger. I wasn't referring to the last part of 1975-76. When Walton went down with his career-ruining injury in early 1978, the Blazers were playing around .800 ball or better. Without him they went out in the first round of the playoffs.

The financial situation had nothing to do with the talent level, Chris. There has always been talent. Walton's team crushed a Sixers team with Erving, McGinnis, Collins, Jones, Bibby, and Dawkins. they had a ridiculous amount of talent.

Damn right. And Walton made them look helpless in the last four games of the finals. He transformed that bunch of scrubs into a great team. (Made me a fair amount of money betting on them, too, so maybe that influences my opinion a bit.)

Additionally, the ABA was contracted by 2 teams, so in 1977 there was an acute infusion of talent that beefed up the squads of a number of teams.

Exactly right. Though I think that the biggest concentration of great (as in all-time great) teams was in the early and mid-80's, when you had the Celtics, the Lakers and the Sixers all among the best teams that ever walked onto a court, if not the best. In fact, it's possible that the 83 Sixers ("Fo! Fo! Fo!") may have been among the two or three best single season teams ever. And Moses Malone is without question the most underrated center ever.

He did, as was evidenced by the team's collapse last year when he got hurt.

Pierce played every game in 2005-2006, and the Cs finished out of the playoffs in a weak conference. What's Pierce's problem?

I can't comment on Garnett. I wasn't close enough to the situation. But it looked from afar as a total organizational meltdown that had nothing to do with Garnett. L.A.'s meltdown had everything to do with Kobe.

Sounds like more talk out of your backside. You can't comment on Garnett, but you can on Bryant? It looked like an organizational meltdown in Minnesota but not in Los Angeles? You're obviously just guessing, just making stuff up as you go. In other words, the usual performance from you.

So, I'm not Joey, but after 400 posts of seeing nycfan repeat his questions, I have to admit I'm kind of curious myself. Therefore, I'm going to attempt to dig into each question, with a view toward being generous to both nycfan and McCain in assessing truth or falsity. For each question, I'd like to address three separate issues:

How well does the quote match McCain's actual sentiments? That is, is the quote accurate? Is it put in its appropriate context? Did McCain later acknowledge that he misspoke and correct himself? I'm not going to go digging through every word McCain says in an attempt to exonerate him, but if he made an effort to correct himself publicly, he deserves some credit for that.

How well does the quote, assuming it reasonably conveys McCain's actual sentiments, match up with reality?

Is nycfan's allegation ("completely false") accurate in this case, and if not, how accurate was McCain's statement?

In an effort to eliminate as much partisan bias as possible, I'll be using only quotes sourced from reputable major media outlets. Wherever possible, precedence is given to the NYT, as the "paper of record".

To begin, let's look at statement #1!

nycfan's quote #1:

"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."

nycfan's view: "This is completely wrong. It was Maliki's allies in Parliament who went to Iran to get an Iranian general to broker the ceasefire."

Is the quote accurate? Essentially, yes. The transcript of the Fox News interview containing the exchange is here. The transcript contains this exchange between McCain and Chris Wallace:

MCCAIN: [...] It was al-Sadr that declared a cease-fire, not Maliki, and they continue...

WALLACE: It was brokered by the Iranians, who actually may have more clout with both al-Sadr — I mean, let me just ask you the question from this point of view. [...]

MCCAIN: Well, in respect, I don't think Sadr would have declared the cease-fire if he thought he was winning. Most times in history of military engagements, the winning side doesn't declare the cease-fire.

That seems accurate enough for me.

Does the quote match up with reality? This is where the question usually gets tangled, and, no surprise, it's no different here. The interview is dated April 6th, and presumably Wallace and McCain are referring to the March 30th "ceasefire" in what is now being referred to as the "Battle of Basra". There are various accounts of exactly what happened here.

The NYT:: "Sadr Offers Deal for Truce as Fighting Persists in Iraq" ... "BAGHDAD — The Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr on Sunday took a step toward ending six days of intense combat between his militia allies and Iraqi and American forces in Basra and Baghdad, saying in a statement that his followers would lay down their arms providing the Iraqi government met a series of demands.

The substance of the nine-point statement, released by Mr. Sadr on Sunday afternoon, was hammered out in elaborate negotiations over the past few days with senior Iraqi officials, some of whom traveled to Iran to meet with Mr. Sadr, according to several officials involved in the negotiations."

The IHT: "Sadr calls on his militia to cease fire" ... "BAGHDAD: The Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr said Sunday that he was pulling his fighters off the streets of Iraq and called on the government to stop raids against his followers and to free those it had arrested.

"Because of religious responsibility and to stop Iraqi blood being shed," Sadr said in a nine-point statement given to journalists in the holy Shiite city of Najaf, "we call for an end to armed appearances in Basra and all other provinces.""

Reuters, via Yahoo news: "Basra returning to normal after Sadr truce" ... " BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Residents buried their dead after calm returned to the southern Iraqi city of Basra on Monday, but fighting broke out in Baghdad despite a truce called by Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to end a week of bloodshed.
ADVERTISEMENT

Sadr called his Mehdi Army fighters off the streets on Sunday, nearly a week after Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki launched a crackdown on them, sparking clashes that spread through the mainly Shi'ite south and also the capital."

Although the wording differs, all three accounts appear to credit Sadr with having called, or having called for, the ceasefire. The NYT notes that Iraqi officials did indeed travel to Iran to negotiate the terms, and McClatchy Newspapers notes here that an Iranian general was indeed involved in the talks. It is unclear from all four accounts who originally broached the subject of a ceasefire and which side requested the negotiations. The McClatchy account suggests it may have been Maliki's people, although this is based solely on the assertion of one of the negotiators.

Is nycfan's allegation accurate? It's hard to say for sure with anything in Iraq, but three major news sources agree that Sadr "called" or "called for" the ceasefire. It's hard to say McCain's statement is "completely false" under those circumstances. There is evidence to support the allegation that Iran was involved in brokering the deal. It is possible that the two accounts are not contradictory: "brokering" a ceasefire is not the same thing as "asking for" or "declaring" one. While the accounts do not offer adequate evidence to say for certain, a plausible account could have Sadr or his representatives extending feelers to allies of Maliki, followed by a trip to Iran, resulting in the eventual ceasefire agreement (such as it was). I want to stress that it's equally plausible that it was Maliki's allies who extended the olive branch to Sadr -- the accounts I've been able to dig up so far are noncommittal on that question, and, frankly, given the confused state of affairs in Iraq, we may never actually know one way or the other.

Coming up: Question #2!

In other words, the usual performance from you.

Thats a cheap shot. Pretending Kobe isn't one of the top players in the league is an extraordinary performance. Even by kevin standards.

Because you're trying to tell me he's a superstar.

Kobe's a superstar. He proves it every game, and the vast majority of warm-blooded, thinking beings agree. That group, of course, doesn't include you.

The guy came up small in both post-season he entered post-Shaq. Finally, this year, he had the collossal gall to ask to be traded.

Wait, a superstar on a bad team wants to be traded? How galling and unusual.

Kobe was tired of being Shaq's wingman and wanted to be the man. But he lacked the maturity and the emotional wherewithall to be the man on a good team. Then he whined that he wasn't on a good team, after chasing the guy who he owed his success out of town (actually, he chased both guys he owed his success but that's another story).

Yeah, it couldn't possibly be that Shaq had emotional immaturity issues as well. (Leave Orlando, rip Orlando. Leave L.A., rip L.A. Leave Miami, rip Miami.)

And in case you haven't noticed (and judging by your comments, you haven't!), Kobe IS the man on a good team, and there's a pretty good chance most of the voters are going to give him the trophy he deserved two years ago (but not this year).

He's not getting to the finals you know. The Lakers are going to get knocked off in the west. Winning 56 games is nice but hardly earth-shattering.

Yeah, but the West was insanely competitive this year. I dont think he is making the finals either. I am still going with the Spurs. Would you re evaluate your opinion of Kobe if they made the finals (and presumably won?)

I think I am in between Kevin and some of the others on Kobe. I don't think he is the best player in the league, I guess top 5, but I don't think as poorly of him as Kevin.

I think I am in between Kevin and some of the others on Kobe. I don't think he is the best player in the league, I guess top 5, but I don't think as poorly of him as Kevin.

Near everyone thinks Bryant's a top five player. Nobody thinks as poorly of him as Kevin, because he's insane.

FWIW, I don't think the Lakers can't make the Finals without a near-healthy Bynum in some capacity, which bodes poorly for this season. I think they get to the conference finals, but it'll probably be against either SA or NO, and L.A. still can't match up against Duncan or Paul. Next season should be a blast, though.

Double post.

Anyone know where, over my computer, I can find the Obama-Clinton debate live?

btw, great, great post 948, Mike.

To answer my own question:

http://a.abclocal.go.com/wpvi/livemedia?section=news/politics&id=6083174

Continuing:

nycfan's quote #2:

"His [Sadr's] influence has been on the wane for a long time."

nycfan's view: "I don't even need to get into how wrong this is."

Is the quote accurate? Yes, but it ignores some important context. The full transcript of the interview is available here. The relevant exchange:

KING: [...] How much of the success or the improvements in security do you attribute directly to the surge, and how much to the point that maybe al-Sadr has made the political calculations to just keep his powder dry for now?

MCCAIN: Al-Sadr has been — his influence has been on the wane for a long time. He has been out of the country. He has declared that he is going to devote his time to thought and prayer. There is no doubt that in Sadr City, it is a very tough place. And still there is a hotbed of his followers. And it is a difficult place to get into.

The complete answer is rather more nuanced than the quote gives McCain credit for. It's clear that, while McCain does state that al-Sadr's influence "has been on the wane for a long time", he also acknowledges that there are still areas where he's very strong and has plenty of followers.

Does the quote match up with reality? Like a lot of questions, the answer here depends on exactly how you construe words. How long ago is "a long time"? And what sort of "influence"?

During the April '04 Shi'ite uprising, Sadr's militia clashed with coalition forces in a number of spots in southern Iraq: among those referenced in the Guardian story are Baghdad, Basra, Kut, and Kerbala. August brought heavy fighting in Najaf, with "clashes" in Baghdad, Amara, and Nassiriyah. In 2008, according to Reuters, fighting occurred (for that matter, is still going on) in Basra, Baghdad, and Kut.

Is that "waning influence"? Um ... I honestly can't say. We don't know how many militiamen were killed or captured in '04, and we don't know how many will eventually be killed and captured in '08. There's still fighting going on, but we aren't sure if they're fighting the Mahdi Army or other opponents or both. We don't know how long the violence will last vis-a-vis April, we don't know how severe it will be in comparison ... there's just too much we don't know.

In government terms, you could say his influence has "waned", I guess, on the basis of his loyalists leaving the government -- but how much influence did they have to start with? And how much of his influence with the government is really dependent on his having them there?

The one thing that is clear in discussing Sadr's "influence" is that he still has enough of it that his loyalists will fight the U.S. and the Iraqi Army for him, or at least he did three weeks ago. I know it sounds like a copout, but the situation is so murky that I find it really hard to say whether his influence has waned or not. This is one of those questions that needs to be answered 20 years from now, but unfortunately we don't get to wait 20 years before passing judgment on what McCain's remarks say about his suitability as a president.

Is nycfan's allegation accurate? Partly. The quote as he cites it suggests that McCain is dismissive of Sadr's continuing influence in Iraq, but McCain's answer in full is fairly forthright that, waned or not, he's still a force to be reckoned with.

A case can be made that Sadr's influence really hasn't declined much at all, and that McCain is straight-out wrong. I don't see that case as being anything close to airtight, however, and it appears possible that McCain is correct, if you consider 2004 "a long time" ago. I don't find enough data to warrant absolute certainty in either direction.

It is also possible that McCain is intentionally describing the world as he wishes it to be rather than as it is, in a deliberate effort to decay Sadr's power base using the media. That would be awfully Machiavellian, and I don't consider it likely, nor do I necessarily consider it prudent. (It could just as easily be considered a further provocation, and make things worse rather than better by leading Sadr to show he still does have plenty of influence, and hence gain more.) But I don't think I can completely rule out the possibility.

Coming up, but probably not until after dinner, quote #3!

FWIW, I don't think the Lakers can't make the Finals without a near-healthy Bynum in some capacity, which bodes poorly for this season.

Me neither. I would have my money on SA or PHO.

Next season should be a blast, though.

Jackson has been talking smack about 2008-2009 for months, so he agrees.

Ugh--the debate so far is all personal, no policy.

Ugh--the debate so far is all personal, no policy.

Too bad they can't put each other on "ignore."

ANDY: "You want to talk about leading a bunch of journeymen to a title: I'd like to see any other center accomplish that with Maurice Lucas, Lionel Hollins, Johnny Gross, Dave Twardzik, and a bench led by Johnny Davis and Lloyd Neal."

The players surrounding Walton on the 1976-77 Trailblazers were gods next to the mediocrity which surrounded Rick Barry on the Warriors two seasons prior. (I think the 74-75 GS team, outside of Barry, is probably the worst championship team of my lifetime.)

Here is what Rick Barry had around him: Jamaal Wilkes, as a rookie; Butch Beard; Charles Johnson; Clifford Ray; Derek Dickey; George Johnson; Jeff Mullins and Phil Smith, another rookie.

Wilkes was gifted, but far from the player he became 4 years later with the Lakers. Jeff Mullins was at the end of his run; and Phil Smith had not yet emerged.

Before Larry Bird came along, Rick Barry was the greatest white player ever*. He was also the best small forward ever. Bird beats him in almost all respects, so there is no argument for Barry. But what Barry did in winning that title in 1975 was pretty amazing.

Notably, I think the greatest college achievement by a single player in leading his team of nobodies is what Bird did with Indiana State in 1979. Has there ever been a worse collection of talent, outside of Bird, to make it to the NCAA final game (since great athletes began to dominate basketall)? I don't think so. And keep in mind: that was at a time when almost all great college players at least stayed until they were 20 years old. So the teams that Indiana State had to beat to make it to the Final Four were probably, on average, far better than the Final Four teams of today.

* Walton was not better than Rick Barry. He only had a few great seasons as a pro. Injuries prevented him from being as good as he could have been.

Al-Sadr's influence may or may not be on the wane. Who knows. The point that I think McCain was making - and perhaps has slipped past MH#1F - is that it's said that Al-Sadr has lost a large degree of control over his own movement. Of course unless you're on the inside, kinda hard to tell. I think it's a perfectly reasonable claim for McCain to make.

As for him being out of the country, that's definitely a lie. But it's not McCain's lie, he's just parrotting the US military disinformation (said so as to discredit Al-Sadr) so I'll give him a pass on that one.

Aw, christ. It's lapel pins, and why don't you wear the flag, and what about bosnia, and rev wright, and that guy you were seen with at a party, and your husband pardoned two guys in the weather underground. I wonder if it's legal to kick that brainless worm Stephanopoulos in the balls?

Here's my list of the 10 best centers of all-time in order:

1. Wilt
2. Shaq
3. Kareem
4. Russell
5. Duncan
6. Dream
7. Robinson
8. Malone
9. Thurmond
10. Gilmore*

* Kind of hard to judge Artis, in that he played his best years in the ABA. But for his fro alone, deserves to crack the top 10.

Like a lot of questions, the answer here depends on exactly how you construe words.

No way cowboy. Words mean stuff.

That's not Artis Gilmore, Rich. Although that guy does have a nice fro.

Too bad they can't put each other on "ignore."

Works for me. I've enjoyed this site much more since I put three people on ignore. Life is way too short to get into endless, essentially pointless discussions with people who are only interested in winning.

I have to believe you do it just to argue, because you can't possibly be this dishonest.

Yes he can.

Winning 56 games is nice but hardly earth-shattering.

It was actually 57. In any case, they are 22-5 with Gasol on the court with Bryant. That is why they have a shot, in spite of not having Ariza and Bynum. But they should not be the favorites, in spite of the seeding.

I wonder if it's legal to kick that brainless worm Stephanopoulos in the balls?

I would gladly contribute to your defense fund.

Ah, c'mon. Lay Lady Lay is a great song. I captures a man's sexual yearning quite nicely.

I'm not really a fan of the Nashville Skyline album generally. Lay Lady Lay's probably the best song on that album.

No way. It sounds somnamulent [sic]. If that's a man's sexual yearning, it's of a man who has been up for 147 hours straight. It sounds as bored as it is boring.

Andy,

what about Hakeem taking a team with 0 other all-stars to back to back titles in 1994 & 1995.
He averaged 31pts, 10.7 rebounds, 4.4assist, 3 blocks and 1.3steals while beating Robinson, Shaq and Ewing, all who had better supporting casts and were at or near their primes.

Near everyone thinks Bryant's a top five player. Nobody thinks as poorly of him as Kevin, because he's insane.

Bryant's a no-brainer top-5 player and has been for much of his career.

I was always puzzled by the shift in points of view, the "my" and "his", in Lay, Lady, Lay. What's going on with that--is Dylan not getting the girl, is he sharing the girl?

"I Threw It All Away" is the best song on _Nashville Skyline._ There's actually a nice Elvis Costello cover of it out there, too.

Here's my list of the 10 best centers of all-time in order:

1. Wilt
2. Shaq
3. Kareem
4. Russell
5. Duncan
6. Dream
7. Robinson
8. Malone
9. Thurmond
10. Gilmore*

Since you're obviously picking the best one-on-one centers, how can you put Russell so high?

Sure, he may have keyed the greatest fast break offense in history. Sure, he invented the modern role of defensive center. Sure, he led the Celtics to 11 championships, both with great surrounding talent and then later with so-so talent. Sure, he made every other Celtic play up to his best level. And sure, he led his last two college teams and an Olympic team to championships.

But of course since he didn't lead in all those individual statistical categories, he couldn't possibly have been as good as Wilt ####*ng Chamberlain. Hell, he never even scored 50 points in a game, let alone 100. How can he possibly top anyone who did that? Isn't it well known that basketball is an individual sport?

As for the 74-75 Warriors, they were admittedly on a pretty sad level below Barry (although Phil Smith was very good during the finals, and IIRC Chenier was hurt), but unlike 76-77, that was a depleted year, with the ABA still going strong with Erving, Thompson, McGinniss, etc. The Warriors' playoff competition that year was nowhere near that of the Blazers.

And Hakeem was great, but he still had a better supporting cast than Walton. And the Rockets never had to pass through Jordan.

Remember, I'm only talking about Walton's very brief peak. His career value is nowhere near the top 10 or even 20. But he was one of those players, like Russell, that you really had to see to appreciate. His team skills simply don't get their full expression in the statistics---you'd have to include figures for his opponents' physical exhaustion and mental confusion to get the measure of what Walton brought to the table.

Remember, I'm only talking about Walton's very brief peak. His career value is nowhere near the top 10 or even 20. But he was one of those players, like Russell, that you really had to see to appreciate. His team skills simply don't get their full expression in the statistics---you'd have to include figures for his opponents' physical exhaustion and mental confusion to get the measure of what Walton brought to the table.

So, you agree Walton doesn't belong in the top 10, then. It strikes me that this is why career value (or a career perspective) is so important in making these kinds of judgments. Memory is too unreliable to allow place of privilege in player evaluation. I'm not saying it shouldn't have some place, but that it shouldn't have first place. Your description of Walton probably has some combination of accuracy and nostalgia mixed together, much as Kevin's descriptions of players suffer from a potent mix of derangement, nostalgia, self-reference, and whiskey.

Walton's peak was ridiculously good and I'd throw in the fact that he's in the handful-at-most guys in the conversation for best college player ever. His championship game against Memphis was off-the-charts and it took a Herculean effort by a terrific NC State team to deny him three straight championships.

MH#1, I appreciate you taking the time to respond thoughtfully to my points. In response to #1, I think the McClatchy article is the one with the most detail, and a number of quotes in it suggest it was members of Maliki's ruling coalition that initiated the talks.

"Ali al Adeeb, a member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's Dawa party, and Hadi al Ameri, the head of the Badr Organization, the military wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, had two aims, lawmakers said: to ask Sadr to stand down his militia and to ask Iranian officials to stop supplying weapons to Shiite militants in Iraq"

Looking at it again, I agree that it is not entirely clear that Sadr had not in some way put out feelers to either Iraqi or Iranian officials, but given the way the fighting was going in basra and Maliki's initial stance of no negotiation, the evidence suggests it wasn't Sadr that was losing and needed to ask for a ceasefire. Either way, it is clear that McCain was trying to argue that Sadr was not the winner of the battle, when everything i've read from people who know more about Iraq than I do suggests he was. I think it's impossible to argue that Maliki was the winner, considering his allies seem to have gone behind his back to negotiate the ceasefire.

I'll respond to your response to #2 next.

What does Walton think about working class people in small towns?

JC, I've always made clear distinctions between career and peak values, and I've always said that the question of "best" is totally dependent on your definition of the term. Is Pedro Martinez a "better" pitcher than Roger Clemens? At his peak, no question. For career value? No way.

For one game, or one injury free season, I'll take Bill Walton over any center who ever walked onto a court, with the possible exception of Bill Russell. Walton was the ultimate multi-tooled center, who took every single teammate on the court to a higher level. But you only got to see that for a tiny fraction of his career. And perhaps you had to see him in action to fully appreciate what I'm talking about.

And even the concept of "career" value is subjective, because you have to say whether you're primarily slotting an All-Star team, or an All-Star team.

Many people envision the former, and take Chamberlain or Abdul-Jabbar, who probably had the most valuable extra-long career of any NBA center. They overlook Chamberlain's baggage and concentrate on his unparalleled stat lines.

But since I'm looking to pick an All-Star team, one which could beat any other team on a basketball court, on a career basis I'd take Jordan, Magic, Bird, Lebron, and Russell. You could maybe stick Robertson or West in there as backup guards without losing a step, and Baylor or Abdul-Jabbar (or Shaq, or Olajuwon) wouldn't hurt you much, either. And sure, Lebron's only been at it for a few years, but unless he gets a Walton-style injury, he's a lock. But I don't think that you could ever put together any other "All-Star team" that could ever work as a unit and beat my starting five on a basketball court.

Of course their coach would be Auerbach. That'd take any potential matchup from the level of mere stealing to Grand Larceny.

JC, please step away from the basketball table. You'll only hurt yourself.

Walton, may I remind you, won 88 college games in a row. Think about that a moment. 8-8 i-n a r-o-w.

Here's my list of the 10 best centers of all-time in order:

1. Wilt
2. Shaq
3. Kareem
4. Russell
5. Duncan
6. Dream
7. Robinson
8. Malone
9. Thurmond
10. Gilmore*

* Kind of hard to judge Artis, in that he played his best years in the ABA. But for his fro alone, deserves to crack the top 10.

Not really. He entered the NBA in his prime and, at best, he was the fourth or fifth best center. So to put him in the top 10 of alltime is kind of ridiculous. Ewing was better than Gilmore. cowens and Reed were better than gilmore. Heck, I'd probably take Bob Lanier over Gilmore.

No offense, Rich, but that list of your is kind of absurd. Picking Wilt #1 when he wasn't even the best center of his own era is whacked.

What does Walton think about working class people in small towns?

He probably thinks that they should just put aside their troubles and follow their inner gurus. But I'm sure that the no-nonsense George Stephanopoulos will be sure to ask Obama about "the Walton issue" in any subsequent debate.

Walton, may I remind you, won 88 college games in a row. Think about that a moment. 8-8 i-n a r-o-w.

Kevin, we agree on everything about Walton, but in fairness he did have a few pretty good teammates there on those UCLA teams. It was only when he got to the Blazers that we really had any chance to evaluate him in the context of an otherwise scrublike collections of players.

He probably thinks that they should just put aside their troubles and follow their inner gurus. But I'm sure that the no-nonsense George Stephanopoulos will be sure to ask Obama about "the Walton issue" in any subsequent debate.

God, was last night a disgrace for the network news departments, right down to the effort to try to get an exclusive on the purest of civic news.

Awful on every level.

No offense, Rich, but that list of your is kind of absurd. Picking Wilt #1 when he wasn't even the best center of his own era is whacked.

If Rich is an individual stats junkie, his choice makes sense. If he's a Lakers fan, it's a good explanation.

If you two persist in changing the discussion to best center gauged by their college career, we can go that route. That makes Walton look very good indeed, but makes Lew Alcindor look just as good, if not better, considering his UCLA team's 88-2 record, 3 Championships, his 3 college player of the year trophies (of course he wasn't eligible for 4), not to mention his incredible run at Power Memorial. Lew Alcindor it is, then!

Kevin, we agree on everything about Walton, but in fairness he did have a few pretty good teammates there on those UCLA teams. It was only when he got to the Blazers that we really had any chance to evaluate him in the context of an otherwise scrublike collections of players.

Well, I disagree with that, Andy. Even being with good players, you could see how much better he was than anyone else. What he did with the blazers might have demonstrated how good he was, but it didn't prove it. He had nothing left to prove at that point, IMO. He just needed to be able to play.

If you two persist in changing the discussion to best center gauged by their college career, we can go that route. That makes Walton look very good indeed, but makes Lew Alcindor look just as good, if not better, considering his UCLA team's 88-2 record, 3 Championships, his 3 college player of the year trophies (of course he wasn't eligible for 4), not to mention his incredible run at Power Memorial. Lew Alcindor it is, then!

Walton went head-to-head against Kareem when Kareem was in his prime and outplayed him.

So no, we won't be discussing Kareem.

God, was last night a disgrace for the network news departments, right down to the effort to try to get an exclusive on the purest of civic news.

Awful on every level.

Last night was a very good time to be in the pool room with access to the Yanks-Sox game in between matches. I read the transcript of the "debate," and you have to wonder what those two morons were thinking---and I'm not talking about the candidates.

And I wonder why Clinton's former Press Secretary didn't think to ask Clinton about President Clinton's pardons of the two Weathermen. Perhaps he wasn't aware of the grave importance of such questions.

Walton went head-to-head against Kareem when Kareem was in his prime and outplayed him.

So no, we won't be discussing Kareem.

LOL.

The college thing is more an effort to supplement the record, given Walton's short peak. Everyone back then played in college 3+ years, so it's a decent measuring stick.

Kareem was obviously fantastic both in the pros and in college. I wouldn't begin to say it decides the issue, but the Blazer championship team played Kareem's Lakers in the West finals and swept them. The '77-'78 Blazer team (50-10 at their peak) had left the Lakers in their dust at the time Walton's foot blew.(**)

(**) If memory serves, Blazer core guys other than Walton had serious complaints about the team doctors by the spring of 1978 and otehr guys didn't make it to/through the playoffs healthy. They were the prohibitive favorite to win the chip and, healthy, almost certainly would have smoked both the Sonics and Bullets.

Kevin, we agree on everything about Walton, but in fairness he did have a few pretty good teammates there on those UCLA teams. It was only when he got to the Blazers that we really had any chance to evaluate him in the context of an otherwise scrublike collections of players.

Well, I disagree with that, Andy. Even being with good players, you could see how much better he was than anyone else.

No argument there.

What he did with the blazers might have demonstrated how good he was

Which was my only point.

but it didn't prove it. He had nothing left to prove at that point, IMO.

Not to anyone who saw him play. But to have a set of teammates like he had in Portland and take them all the way to the top was the smoking gun supreme.

JC, shouldn't you be at the papal mass?

The complete answer is rather more nuanced than the quote gives McCain credit for. It's clear that, while McCain does state that al-Sadr's influence "has been on the wane for a long time", he also acknowledges that there are still areas where he's very strong and has plenty of followers

It's true that McCain does acknowledge Sadr still has followers, but he seems to limit it to Sadr City, when it is pretty clear at this point that Sadr has significant influence in Basra, and likely across the Shiite south. Here's a quote from a Washington Post Article about internal refugees in Iraq: Article

"The Refugees International study found that, with many displaced Iraqis living in poverty, the movement of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has become Iraq's "largest 'humanitarian' organization."

It also seems that the main reason Maliki and ISCI are so desperate to either eliminate the Mahdi Army or to try to ban the Sadrists from the elections is that they are likely to lose control of a number of southern provinces if the Sadrists are allowed to run. McCain suggested Sadr's influence was limited to Sadr city (which accounts for almost 10% of Iraq's population), when it is pretty clear his support goes far beyond that.

If you two persist in changing the discussion to best center gauged by their college career, we can go that route.

When did I even bring up anyone's college career? I'm talking strictly NBA.

Kareem was obviously fantastic both in the pros and in college. I wouldn't begin to say it decides the issue, but the Blazer championship team played Kareem's Lakers in the West finals and swept them. The '77-'78 Blazer team (50-10 at their peak) had left the Lakers in their dust at the time Walton's foot blew.(**)

(**) If memory serves, Blazer core guys other than Walton had serious complaints about the team doctors by the spring of 1978 and otehr guys didn't make it to/through the playoffs healthy. They were the prohibitive favorite to win the chip and, healthy, almost certainly would have smoked both the Sonics and Bullets.

Your memory on all counts is impeccable.

The '77-'78 Blazer team (50-10 at their peak) had left the Lakers in their dust at the time Walton's foot blew.(**)

They were crushing everybody. They certainly would have won. Nobody else was even close. (edit: it was 51-11 but no matter)

The Bullets won by default. Walton would have been a hopeless mismatch for Unseld. He was bigger and quicker and could go both over and around him.

And I wonder why Clinton's former Press Secretary didn't think to ask Clinton about President Clinton's pardons of the two Weathermen. Perhaps he wasn't aware of the grave importance of such questions.

Heck, I'm wondering why Obama would agree to Clinton's former Press Secretary as moderator.

If he's a Lakers fan, it's a good explanation.

Rich is a Kings fan and probably hates the Lakers. I think he even worked for the Kings, or did analysis for them, or something. As to Russell/Chamberlain, that was before my time. The more modern parallel, also slightly before my time, really, would be Walton/Abdul-Jabbar. Having played a lot of basketball, both organized and pickup, and watched even more, I have never really bought the idea that great players "make other players better." There are some stat studies that support this. Cousy, Havlicek and Sam and KC Jones were not, in all likelihood, stiffs, although I never saw them play except for Havlicek at the very end in 1977-78. However, players who are multidimensional can cover other players' weaknesses and make them appear to be more useful, since they have to do less. This is why I would make Garnett MVP, in that I think he has more impact on the defensive end and is the linchpin of the Celtics' D, impacting the game in a way LeBron does not, in spite of his gifts. Kobe Bryant, while he is a great player, is not a great passer (he is pretty good, not great) nor does he have enormous impact on the boards. He is a good one-on-one defender, but that is not the same as anchoring the paint. This is why the Lakers' problems the last couple of years and their success this year have very little to do with his personality. It is a chicken-and-egg issue. Bryant's not being an ####### because the Lakers are better, rather than the Lakers are better because Bryant's not being an #######.

I am sure that Russell brought these kinds of of multidimenional elements to the table in ways Chamberlain didn't, but I also think if you switched them so Chamberlain was playing with Cousy, Havlicek, et al, the Celtics win a huge number of titles. It is, as you say, a team game.