Checking standings / Box Scores! - - - -

[niremetal]

He went back in and tried to rationalize his OP. His OP is a cherry picking argument at its worst that somehow Marvin managed to make the Hawks a playoff team while Paul somehow makes his team not a playoff team.

BS. His post didn't even come close to implying that.

Edited April 6, 2010 by niremetal

[Sothron]

BS. His post didn't even come close to implying that.

Uh, actually, it did. You don't list someone's cherry picked game stats from one player and their team record and compare it to another player's cherry picked game states and add their team record and have it be anything else.

[AHF]

He went back in and tried to rationalize his OP. His OP is a cherry picking argument at its worst that somehow Marvin managed to make the Hawks a playoff team while Paul somehow makes his team not a playoff team.

I also have to raise eyebrows at your last post. Are you seriously comparing the chances of a team to make the playoffs in the East versus the West and holding them to the same standard? Really? You don't think the Hornets making it to the playoffs and getting to the second round was a littttttttttttttle more harder than the Hawks doing the same?

His message is get over it. I agree and second that message. Neither my post nor his are meant to be exhaustive apples to apples comparisons of the two teams. They are supposed to reflect that we are in pretty good shape now, the 2005 draft is spilled milk, and any continued whining over that while we are in the top 4 teams in the East seems pointless.

He NEVER, NEVER says that "Marvin managed to make the Hawks a playoff team while Paul somehow makes hi team not a playoff team." Go back and look at GM's posting history and ask yourself why you are rejecting a reading of his post that makes it seem reasonable while accepting one that makes him seem delusional.

Don't you think if GM thought Marvin was better than Paul it would have come up in the last 5 years?

[AHF]

Uh, actually, it did. You don't list someone's cherry picked game stats from one player and their team record and compare it to another player's cherry picked game states and add their team record and have it be anything else.

Really? You reject the idea that he might have been pointing out the Hawks are in good shape and the Hornets aren't doing so well more than individually evaluating players but you are totally on board with the idea that GM's citing:

MW went 3-6 for 7 points / 1 assist..

is evidence that Gray Mule believes Marvin is carrying the Hawks into the playoffs?

Has anyone in the history of basketball discussion used a 7 point, 1 assist game as evidence someone was responsible for a team being in the playoffs?

This is getting ridiculous. Look at Gray Mule's posting history and try to get some context and perspective on this.

:help wanted3:

Edited April 6, 2010 by AHF

[Atlantaholic]

I think we can all agree to get over it. Best way to start is by not talking about it. Ever again.

[Sothron]

His message is get over it. I agree and second that message. Neither my post nor his are meant to be exhaustive apples to apples comparisons of the two teams. They are supposed to reflect that we are in pretty good shape now, the 2005 draft is spilled milk, and any continued whining over that while we are in the top 4 teams in the East seems pointless.

He NEVER, NEVER says that "Marvin managed to make the Hawks a playoff team while Paul somehow makes hi team not a playoff team." Go back and look at GM's posting history and ask yourself why you are rejecting a reading of his post that makes it seem reasonable while accepting one that makes him seem delusional.

Don't you think if GM thought Marvin was better than Paul it would have come up in the last 5 years?

I'm not responding to someone's posting history. I responded to his original post that clearly lists Paul's cherry picked game stats and team record versus Marvin's cherry picked game stat and team record and holding them up for inspection. I don't care if his post was meant to come across as "Marvin is a bust which is why I listed a usual bad game from him but we're still doing ok". If that is the case then simply say it.

Which is still wrong of course. The Hawks would be a better team if we had drafted Paul or Deron instead of Marvin. This kind of associational blame game to try and make Marvin look better than what he is because "hey we are good now despite him" is nothing more than that. And it does in fact deserve to be called out.

[AHF]

I'm not responding to someone's posting history. I responded to his original post that clearly lists Paul's cherry picked game stats and team record versus Marvin's cherry picked game stat and team record and holding them up for inspection. I don't care if his post was meant to come across as "Marvin is a bust which is why I listed a usual bad game from him but we're still doing ok". If that is the case then simply say it.

Which is still wrong of course. The Hawks would be a better team if we had drafted Paul or Deron instead of Marvin. This kind of associational blame game to try and make Marvin look better than what he is because "hey we are good now despite him" is nothing more than that. And it does in fact deserve to be called out.

We'll have to agree to disagree. He not only didn't say what you are saying, IMO, he very clearly clarified his position in the next post he made - both that Marvin has been bad and to make it clear that Atlanta's success as a team was not attributable to Marvin either. He made that clarification yet you are ignoring it for some unknown reason.

So you are at best arguing about your interpretation of someone's original post that was poorly written and that they repudiated (if they said it in the first place which, IMO, they didn't) shortly thereafter. Again, it makes zero sense to read someone posting a 7 point, 1 assist game as a compliment to a player who was drafted over Chris Paul yet that is exactly how you are reading it. Moreover, ignoring someone's posting history is a good way to misconstrue what they write -- which is exactly what is happening here, IMO.

I'll stop now. :white flag:

Edited April 6, 2010 by AHF

[Gray Mule]

:thumbsupsmileyanim:

Boy! Seems that, most of the time most of my posts get ignored or read without response.

Some of you have taken something simple and turned it into this.

The simple facts are. I did not cherry pick on the stats for CP3 and MW. That was simply their stats in their latest

game when I made the original post.

Neither of these players had a great game that night. In fact, it was probably one of their worst.

I was simply trying to establish the fact that, as bad as most of us wish that the Hawks had drafted CP3,

which has been posted, over and over here, it didn't happen. MW is the player we took instead. Now,

no one has any love for MW. We all know this. Read their posts. We all love CP3. We still can't get

over the fact that, as bad as we needed a PG, we instead drafted MW.

Now, today the Hawks are headed for the playoffs. CP3 will not. He's been injured this season and his

team couldn't make it without him. He's that good. Atlanta is in the playoffs DESPITE THE FACT that they

drafted MW instead of CP3.

If we had takenCP3, chances are very good that the Hawks would not have signed JJ to play PG for them.

That didn't work out either, did it. Now, if the Hawks had CP3 instead of MW and no JJ and CP3 out injured,

where do you think the Hawks would be?

I thought I was making a simple post. Easily understood. Yet, so much of what's not there is being

discussed. Some of the things that you thought I implied wasn't there or wasn't meant to be there.

Is everything clear now?

:handshake:

Edited April 7, 2010 by Gray Mule

[Sothron]

Not to bust your chops again but saying the Hawks wouldn't have signed JJ because we had Paul is inaccurate. Joe was not brought here to be a point guard. Paul (or Deron) with JJ in the backcourt would have been a treat to watch.

[MrRyda]

If we had takenCP3, chances are very good that the Hawks would not have signed JJ to play PG for them.

That didn't work out either, did it. Now, if the Hawks had CP3 instead of MW and no JJ and CP3 out injured,

where do you think the Hawks would be?

In the crummy Eastern Conference? I'd say still in the playoffs. :rolleyes:

[Gray Mule]

Sorry about saying the Hawks signed JJ to play PG.

That was what was widely reported at the time. Guess I simply misunderstood what their

GM at the time was saying.

:cant believe:

Edited April 7, 2010 by Gray Mule

[AHF]

Sorry about saying the Hawks signed JJ to play PG.

That was what was widely reported at the time. Guess I simply misunderstood what their

GM at the time was saying.

:cant believe:

They did say he was going to play PG but I agree that this doesn't mean we wouldn't have resigned him anyway. Obviously, we weren't committed to him playing PG given how quickly we abandoned that experiment and put him at SG.

I agree with your premise that people need to get over the 2005 draft, but I don't agree with the people who argue that drafting Paul means passing on JJ.