Official Game Thread: Hawks at Suns

[JayBirdHawk]

2 hours ago, Dnice said:

is this what they mean by being mid?

we just can't seem to get over.

 

[Diesel]

2 hours ago, terrell said:

 

Like I said we'll see.

You ALWAYS miss the BAD..Or make up excuses for it.....

Thats why I dont take you seriously...

 

No...

I don't agree with your constant assertion of the bad.   I use context.   I point out the "real" bad and the good.  Can you say the same??

[JayBirdHawk]

 

 

[JayBirdHawk]

 

 

[kg01]

5 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

 

 

"Beep bop boop.... roTaTiOnS" - iR 

[Final_quest]

3 hours ago, sturt said:

Does it tho?

Ya know, I've said from the start that everyone is free to use their own discernment as to how many games it should take a team to build its chemistry sufficiently enough to accommodate a brand new member on the first unit, and practically an entire second unit.

And thus.

How many games it should take a team to be in a place where one can feel some confidence in their analysis of the likelihood of that rotation having eventual success.

I mean, look, if you're going to analyze a rotation every single game without regard to any of that, then the natural likely consequence of that is you're going to be crying for trades after every single game.

There must be some forethought, some maturity, some attempt at balance from where I sit. Maybe not from where others sit, but I think most of us get it... but also think that media chatter can prompt us to put aside our better, smarter attitude b/c we know that they don't write articles or do radio talk shows that way... and so, that tends to affect our patience.

Where, after all, is any of that wrong? I don't think it is.

And, moreover, I don't recall anyone taking issue with any of that.

They've mainly just wanted to take shots at how I... one guy... have discerned that for me... never mind, I've not taken shots at anyone for whatever number they, after thinking about it, have settled on. I've only taken shots to the degree that certain individuals have just blown off the idea, preferring to mimic their click-bait and ratings-driven media friends, and just being reactive.

It's bothered people to see someone try to take a thoughtful approach, or so I'm left to think. The reactive approach is so much more socially-acceptable and harmonious among sports fans, I suppose... you come here to b!tch and complain, and you want to feel you're among friends, I suppose.

So, we're even. The reactive approach bothers me.

As much as I enjoy participating in the community, it's never been about camaraderie ahead of reasonable discussion, never about relationships ahead of rationale.

I had my number. Anyone else was welcome to whatever different number they wanted to embrace. My thing was, just have some number that has some rationale behind it. That's using the good brain the good Lord gave ya. My momma raised me to never apologize for asking that of people. Momma was right.

Some comments don't merit a moral mountain to die on.  I thought it was a funny observation that a discarded "pledge" record and "real" record were the same.  

[sturt]

23 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

Some comments don't merit a moral mountain to die on.  I thought it was a funny observation that a discarded "pledge" record and "real" record were the same.  

1. Right. And. People laugh at slapstick for essentially the same reason.

2. Your comment actually was spot-on. Discerning one person's idea of a "real season" record versus another's requires some insight. Then again, seems more likely, the one person's idea of a real season was made up in order to try to make a point... no? At least, that's what we're left to think, since his "real season" would have begun in the middle of our 5-game win streak.

3. Don't be one of those people who mock, then when confronted with why the mockery is misplaced, turn and run. Unless, that is, you realize that it was indeed misplaced, and then the intellectually humble thing to do is just admit it was misplaced. Offering up this "don't merit a moral mountain to die on" is fllimsy. You bulldozed that mountain, final. You mocked me, not the other way around, my friend. I'm not only allowed to respond, it makes sense that I do.

[Final_quest]

@sturt no one comes here to read a long drawn out war of words over a one sentence comment between two posters. I will say, I did learn some things from the pledge thread.  A team is a dynamic that shifts over the course of a season.  There’s not always a set number of games where you have things figured out.  This team has played better lately, but it hasn’t shown on the win column consistently.

[sturt]

3 hours ago, Final_quest said:

no one comes here to read a long drawn out war of words

So, in your world, I get it... you wrote what you wrote in order to provide some entertainment to those who "come here."

 

But of course, you should get it that when one does that in a mocking way, regardless of any other audience, you've effectively poked someone in the chest in order to provide your entertainment... and you're going to get called on it, particularly if your entertainment is misguided, and to the contrary, reflects something illegitimate in your own thinking.

 

As is the case here.

 

I'm a big boy, and actually embrace the mocking--gives me an opportunity to draw contrasts between what people had thought I was suggesting based maybe on a half-read of what I've written, and what I actually had suggested. And since it's doled out with some prickly thorn(s), I don't have to necessarily try to be nice unless I just want to.

 

As is the case here.

[sturt]

12 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

 

 

Ya know, I'm again going to be the contrarian who rises to suggest some higher degree of critical thought might be merited here--we've been taking on mortar fire for being a team that "doesn't pass a lot."

You have not one but two scoring point guards... you have not one but two elite playmakers... and conventionally speaking for us or any other team, the ball is necessarily going to be in the hands of a point guard for most possessions.

So should we really be surprised to find that as much as our two PGs themselves shoot, and as much as they themselves are the assist makers, that the others on the floor don't pass as much becaaaaaaauuse they themselves have been set-up to score by one of their PGs?

Now, that said, don't read that to say I'm suggesting we shouldn't want our guys making the extra pass... and don't read that to say I'm dissing the tweeter's suggestion that Jalen's vision/passing be better incorporated into the offense. It's the tweeter's under-the-breath premise that I'm taking some issue with.

So, the working theory goes that other teams pass more than we do because they don't, as we do, routinely have two high-caliber creators/passers/playmakers on the floor, and thus, they have to pass more.