Today's Game Discussion [11/07/2012]

[rayz789]

Originally Posted by XxIrvingxX

The Heat also had a horrible start to the season when they first formed and yet they still went to the finals. Let the season progress first.

The heat didnt have a losing record for goodness sake when they first form together. And remember in 2010 preseason the heat didnt go into the regular season with a 0-8 preseason record. And wade was out for the whole preseason btw. And the heat didnt drop 1-4 in 2010 the way the lakers is right now. I laugh at ppl making example of the heat struggle but yet never had a losing record unless you want to say 0-1 after losing to the celtics in 2010? lmao.

[XxIrvingxX]

Originally Posted by doctordrizzay

They never had a losing record though.

And It isnt just 5 games. The Lakers are 1-14 dating back to the preseason.

You guys are looking at fool's gold here. And im glad im the first one to realize that.

Um actually they did. They lost their first game of the season, which made them 0-1, which is a losing record.

And actually it is just five games. Their preseason games are completely irrelevant to this because they have absolutely nothing to do with this. Preseason and Regular Season are two completely different things.

We aren't looking at any kind of fools gold. You're reasoning for why they were going to be bad was the exact opposite of why they currently are bad, which is because Mike Brown has no idea how to coach a team like this, Nash is injured, making BLAKE of all people the starting PG, and they've been inconsistent defensively (which is their own fault though, so I'll give you that one).

You were predicting that they would be eliminated if they faced a team like the Mavs. You didn't predict that they would have a start like this, so stop acting like you were right. So far you aren't and neither are we, because we aren't at that point in the season yet, which is why we're saying shut up and actually wait.

[XxIrvingxX]

Originally Posted by rayz789

The heat didnt have a losing record for goodness sake when they first form together. And remember in 2010 preseason the heat didnt go into the regular season with a 0-8 preseason record. And wade was out for the whole preseason btw. And the heat didnt drop 1-4 in 2010 the way the lakers is right now. I laugh at ppl making example of the heat struggle but yet never had a losing record unless you want to say 0-1 after losing to the celtics in 2010? lmao.

Well yes, that would be a losing record. I don't know what your definition of it would be what ever definition it is would end up going against reality in the end. A losing record is when you have more losses than wins. That's a losing record, anyway you look at it.

But to their credit, they did go on a three game winning streak afterwords.

[rayz789]

Originally Posted by XxIrvingxX

Um actually they did. They lost their first game of the season, which made them 0-1, which is a losing record.

Stop stop STOP!! So just cause the heat were 0-1 means its exactly the same as 1-4 lakers? LMFAO!! First off the heat in the first regular season lost to the celtics in boston while the lakers this season lost to the mavs without dirk/kaman in staple center for goodness sake lol. And the lakers was 0-3 before finally got their first win vs a bad piston team. Come on 0-1 is not even close to 1-4.

[rayz789]

Originally Posted by XxIrvingxX

Well yes, that would be a losing record. I don't know what your definition of it would be what ever definition it is would end up going against reality in the end. A losing record is when you have more losses than wins. That's a losing record, anyway you look at it.

But to their credit, they did go on a three game winning streak afterwords.

So 0-1 is a losing record but first lost in the first regular season means something? I can name many teams that was 0-1 and went on to win a championship. I bet you cant name me 1 team has won a ring after having an early 1-4 record lol.

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by doctordrizzay

They never had a losing record though.

And It isnt just 5 games. The Lakers are 1-14 dating back to the preseason.

You guys are looking at fool's gold here. And im glad im the first one to realize that.

And when they do start winning and go on a streak, where will you be then?

How about when they're deep in the playoffs? Where will you be?

Will you come up with more excuses to why you ran away from the site this time? Secret mission in Venezuela? Or maybe you'll be in airforce 1 advising Obama on his next move?


What a joke.

[rayz789]

Originally Posted by rayz789

So 0-1 is a losing record but first lost in the first regular season means something? I can name many teams that was 0-1 and went on to win a championship. I bet you cant name me 1 team has won a ring after having an early 1-4 record lol.

Hmm no response? I bet you searching the results irving lol.

[rayz789]

Originally Posted by R-Star

And when they do start winning and go on a streak, where will you be then?

How about when they're deep in the playoffs? Where will you be?

Will you come up with more excuses to why you ran away from the site this time? Secret mission in Venezuela? Or maybe you'll be in airforce 1 advising Obama on his next move?


What a joke.

What happen if the lakers somehow end up losing 2 more games in which they be 1-6? You still wont be concern? I doubt they be 1-6 because they got the very small warriors in staple center next i believe so they should win that game unless the lakers want to still walk halfcourt.

[XxIrvingxX]

Originally Posted by rayz789

Stop stop STOP!! So just cause the heat were 0-1 means its exactly the same as 1-4 lakers? LMFAO!! First off the heat in the first regular season lost to the celtics in boston while the lakers this season lost to the mavs without dirk/kaman in staple center for goodness sake lol. And the lakers was 0-3 before finally got their first win vs a bad piston team. Come on 0-1 is not even close to 1-4.

When did I ever say they were the same? I never said such a thing nor did I even remotely hint at it. I thought I made it perfectly clear that these were two different situations, but I guess I literally needed to spell it out for you. It was a comparison, yes, but I never stated that they were in "similar" situations other than the fact that Miami did start out bad just like the Lakers did. Did I say it was "as bad"? No I didn't. I didn't specify because I felt that I didn't need to, but I guess you couldn't gather enough brain cells to figure it out apparently. So don't put words in my mouth kid, and then act it out like I'm stupid or something. That won't get you very far.

Originally Posted by rayz789

Hmm no response? I bet you searching the results irving lol.

Actually I was doing a research project for one of my classes in college. You know what college is? If you want to know, then stay in school and you'll find out.

[rayz789]

Originally Posted by XxIrvingxX

When did I ever say they were the same? I never said such a thing nor did I even remotely hint at it. I thought I made it perfectly clear that these were two different situations, but I guess I literally needed to spell it out for you. It was a comparison, yes, but I never stated that they were in "similar" situations other than the fact that Miami did start out bad just like the Lakers did. Did I say it was "as bad"? No I didn't. So don't put words in my mouth kid, and then act it out like I'm stupid or something. That won't get you very far.



Actually I was doing a research project for one of my classes in college. You know what college is? If you want to know, then stay in school and you'll find out.

So miami started out bad 0-1 to lakers 0-3 to 1-4 is a "FACT"? Yea good thing u in college because you really need to think long and hard before comment stuff like the heat started bad 0-1 and compare that to 1-4 lakers lolol.

[XxIrvingxX]

Originally Posted by rayz789

So miami started out bad 0-1 to lakers 0-3 to 1-4 is a "FACT"? Yea good thing u in college because you really need to think long and hard before comment stuff like the heat started bad 0-1 and compare that to 1-4 lakers lolol.

Again, stop putting words into my mouth, and actually read the comment. The only reason I mentioned the 0-1 part was because Drizzay claimed Miami didn't have a losing record at any point in the season, and I said they did, hence the 0-1 part. When I first made the statement, the 0-1 part was never stated. The part I was referring too was when the Heat were 20 games into the season and were struggling to beat teams that were above .500. I shouldn't need to spell this shit out for you, even Drizzay wouldn't be this stupid (although I've been wrong before).

[Jace]

Originally Posted by rayz789

Question and its an easy one, have any team ever won a ring after having an early record 1-4? If no then yeah its early but its a real concern.

Stats like these exemplify the dumbing-effect of ESPN on its viewers. Who ****ing cares? Why is your record in games 1-5 more important than in games 52-56? It's not. Let's not forget, we're talking about 3 fairly-old, high-mileage vets, and a guy coming off back surgery. Look at Boston last year. That was a tried and tested core that started off pitifully. Yes, the Lakers have more exigency being a team trying to learn how to play together and develop a winning formula, but vet-laden teams like that don't typically explode out of the gate.

Originally Posted by XxIrvingxX

The Heat also had a horrible start to the season when they first formed and yet they still went to the finals. Let the season progress first.

Must say, this is a very flawed argument. The very first game that core played together (Wade missed the entire preseason) was on the road, in an extremely hostile environment in Boston, against a team that had just played in the Finals hell-bent on proving the Heat aren't so hot. Further, the belief behind the Lakers dominance was that 1) They have four HOF'ers, as opposed to three, 2) Their pieces fit together much more naturally, and 3) Part of their strength lies in the NBA's cornerstone positions: PG and C, and that's without factoring in their 1A player.

The Heat had a lot more to figure out, and faced a lot more doubt about whether or not the combination would work. Instead of a rebounding monster, bruising center they had rail-thin, jumpshooting Bosh at PF. Instead of two perimeter marksmen in Kobe and Nash, they had two slashers who are, at the most, rhythm shooters. On top of that, they filled out their starting lineup with Carlos Arroyo and Zydrunas Ilgauskas. Having your PF and C as your best jumpshooters is hardly an ideal basketball formula.

With that said, its silly to believe this can't/won't work as the season progresses. When they find their identity, they'll find a groove. Their biggest concern is defense, which does somewhat baffle me considering the coach and Howard. Just wanted to point out that they're totally different scenarios.

[XxIrvingxX]

Originally Posted by Jace

Stats like these exemplify the dumbing-effect of ESPN on its viewers. Who ****ing cares? Why is your record in games 1-5 more important than in games 52-56? It's not. Let's not forget, we're talking about 3 fairly-old, high-mileage vets, and a guy coming off back surgery. Look at Boston last year. That was a tried and tested core that started off pitifully. Yes, the Lakers have more exigency being a team trying to learn how to play together and develop a winning formula, but vet-laden teams like that don't typically explode out of the gate.



Must say, this is a very flawed argument. The very first game that core played together (Wade missed the entire preseason) was on the road, in an extremely hostile environment in Boston, against a team that had just played in the Finals hell-bent on proving the Heat aren't so hot. Further, the belief behind the Lakers dominance was that 1) They have four HOF'ers, as opposed to three, 2) Their pieces fit together much more naturally, and 3) Part of their strength lies in the NBA's cornerstone positions: PG and C, and that's without factoring in their 1A player.

The Heat had a lot more to figure out, and faced a lot more doubt about whether or not the combination would work. Instead of a rebounding monster, bruising center they had rail-thin, jumpshooting Bosh at PF. Instead of two perimeter marksmen in Kobe and Nash, they had two slashers who are, at the most, rhythm shooters. On top of that, they filled out their starting lineup with Carlos Arroyo and Zydrunas Ilgauskas. Having your PF and C as your best jumpshooters is hardly an ideal basketball formula.

With that said, its silly to believe this can't/won't work as the season progresses. When they find their identity, they'll find a groove. Their biggest concern is defense, which does somewhat baffle me considering the coach and Howard. Just wanted to point out that they're totally different scenarios.

I still don't see how this explains the other games they lost before they beat the Cavs and suddenly went on a killing spree.

[Jace]

Thought we were comparing equivalent sample sizes, 5 games. Sure, they had some bad losses prior to that tear, but I feel like the rest of my post goes on to address that.

[rayz789]

Originally Posted by XxIrvingxX

I still don't see how this explains the other games they lost before they beat the Cavs and suddenly went on a killing spree.

Lol so now u changing the subject? And btw before facing the cavs, the heat was still over 500 but hey i guess we can ignored that.