[PauloCatarino]

Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!

Try to stick to the discussion instead of making silly comments like the above. I don't accuse you of being romantically involved or having a "love affair" with Jerry West, Magic Johnson or any other players.

You are deliberately trying to deturp (sp?) my words, Minstrel, so i don't see the need to continue this any further...

I have a hard time conceding you wouldn't understand my "live affair" comment...

So, i give up...

[PauloCatarino]

Originally posted by <b>Ravnos</b>!
Paulo, why do you immediately disregard the notion that KG could be better than Bird? It seems as if you (and other people) hold the 80s players up on some pedestal.

That's a good question, Ravnos...

All i can say is that is that, in his prime, Larry Joe Bird was the perfect basketball player in my book...

I've seen dozens of Bird games (even the ones where he kicked my beloved Lakers' ***), and i can honesty say he was untouchable...

KG? Not quite...

[TheRifleman]

Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!


That's a good question, Ravnos...

All i can say is that is that, in his prime, Larry Joe Bird was the perfect basketball player in my book...

I've <b>seen dozens of Bird games (even the ones where he kicked my beloved Lakers' ***), and i can honesty say he was untouchable...</b>

KG? Not quite...

I not only have seen hundreds of Bird's game, but have quite a few preserved on video. I can see where some might think that KG is better than Bird, but there is one area where KG can't touch the Birdman - and that is clutch shooting or hitting the three when pressed to hit it. The 2nd area where I think Bird has the "edge" is his court vision; there isn't one sf that has averaged 6.35 assists per game - lifetime.

Otherwise, KG gives Bird a run for his money.

As for <b>Pippen</b> and his defense, as Minstrel & others have said, <b>supremely consistent.</b> One area that Kobe really needs to step it up is on his weak side help defense. Pippen was Supreme at that, too.

[bballlife]

Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!




Yeah, like Horry's most famous game winning shot (Kings 02), when Kobe "found" Horry by taking a wild three pointer while being triple-teamed, and getting lucky when the ball was tipped out to Horry, I believe by Divac, who happened to be in the perfect spot, wide open. Kobe did a good job of "creating" a shot for Horry that time.

What does the word "usually" mean?

[JNice]

Originally posted by <b>bballlife</b>!


What does the word "usually" mean?

usually

Usual \U"su*al\, a. [L. usualis, from usus use: cf. F. usuel. See Use, n.] Such as is in common use; such as occurs in ordinary practice, or in the ordinary course of events; customary; ordinary; habitual; common.

Consultation with oracles was a thing very usual and frequent in their times. --Hooker.

We can make friends of these usual enemies. --Baxter. -- U\"su*al*ly, adv. -- U\"su*al*ness, n.

[dominikan_balla1]

Originally posted by <b>JNice</b>!


usually

Usual \U"su*al\, a. [L. usualis, from usus use: cf. F. usuel. See Use, n.] Such as is in common use; such as occurs in ordinary practice, or in the ordinary course of events; customary; ordinary; habitual; common.

Consultation with oracles was a thing very usual and frequent in their times. --Hooker.

We can make friends of these usual enemies. --Baxter. -- U\"su*al*ly, adv. -- U\"su*al*ness, n.

[bballlife]

Originally posted by <b>JNice</b>!


usually

Usual \U"su*al\, a. [L. usualis, from usus use: cf. F. usuel. See Use, n.] Such as is in common use; such as occurs in ordinary practice, or in the ordinary course of events; customary; ordinary; habitual; common.

Consultation with oracles was a thing very usual and frequent in their times. --Hooker.

We can make friends of these usual enemies. --Baxter. -- U\"su*al*ly, adv. -- U\"su*al*ness, n.

Oh good one, I think it was very clear what was meant in my original statement. Hit up the thesaurus while you are at it to find out that usually is similar to words like mostly, frequently, and mainly. I could have used a better word but I assumed people would get the point.

If someone were to say that they usually ate breakfast does that imply that they eat breakfast every single day?

Anyway, not worth arguing, I made my point, someone picked out a single word I used and interpreted it incorrectly and another tried to twist it knowing good and well what I meant.

point: You knew exactly what I was trying to say, you just like wasting time.

[Johnny Mac]

Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
about the team you posted: only Magic Johnson could make it a playoff contender... but still you would have to get another SG, for Magic would play the 1 and Lue can't play the 2...

Okay, so no one player in history could get that team to the playoffs. That statement alone disproves your theory that McGrady has to get his team to the playoffs to be considered great. I mean, I stated an extreme example, but its the concept.

If you feel that McGrady had good players around him and just didn't get it done, then thats different. But saying that he should be able to carry any collection of human beings to the playoffs no matter what, because players like Bird and Magic could supposedly do it, is wrong. You admitted that the greatest players of all time couldn't take the 4 worst players in the league at their position to the playoffs.

There is too many factors Paulo. Me and you see eye to eye about Elton Brand. He is the ultimate team player, leader, competitor and overall player, but he actually has a rep of being a bad leader due to his teams failure. Do you think thats fair? I don't, because there is so many factors, and he is only a large part of that, and if the other large parts dont do their fair share, he looks bad. Put Jordan with 4 scrubs, and he wont take them very far, put him with some talent, and you see him shine. Same player, different surroundings.

[bballlife]

What about the fact that the 2004 Magic arguably had a better team on paper than the 2003 Magic, who made it to the playoffs.

21 win difference between the two teams, and probably a better team on paper in 2004.

I think Tmac deserves quite a bit of the blame.

[Johnny Mac]

Originally posted by <b>bballlife</b>!
What about the fact that the 2004 Magic arguably had a better team on paper than the 2003 Magic, who made it to the playoffs.

You seem pretty unsure about that statement.

Originally posted by <b>bballlife</b>!
21 win difference between the two teams, and probably a better team on paper in 2004.

I think Tmac deserves quite a bit of the blame.

So McGrady got worse? The fact that they had a bunch of new guys should tell you that McGrady was the one constant on that team.