Re: There's no reasoning with you Cecil and Noah

[Noah Evans <ishbak@forest.STUDENT.cwru.edu>]

On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 12:32:26PM -0800, Ryan Lee wrote:

> None of my posts are objective?  So I guess my
> description of the Washington game was rather one
> sided and subjective huh?  

You're using a vulgar definition of objective. Objectivity is not
seeing both sides of the issue. An objective argument relating to
basketball would center around "objective" and independently
verifiable data such as statistics. A "subjective" argument would
relate to opinion derived from individual experience.

Your arguments are subjective because you usually eschew statistics in
favor of your own impressions.

As for rambling, I never said your posts actually rambled. I said the
stream of consciousness style that you used gave the *impression* of
rambling.

>Yeah I really trashed Toine
> in that post by saying it was his best game ever.  Or
> maybe I wasn't giving the Washington players enough
> credit because I was so one tracked.  I mean Laetner
> did light us up for 30.   

The argument is against your *style*. 

>   Most of my Walker posts haven't been based on just
> one game.  I didn't just wake up one day and decide to
> dislike the guy.  I watched his game stagnate for 5
> years so excuse me if I have to vent.  Noah, you being
> a "reasonable" person can just look at the rest of the
> league.  Every other teams star player does what
> they're supposed to do. 

Look at what you're arguing here. You're actually proving my point for
me. You base your argument entirely on your *own* perception of
Antoine's relative merits. That's all I was arguing. The main issue I
take with your style of argumentation is that you assume your own
opinion is gospel truth. Anyone who disagrees with you is immediately
branded as someone who doesn't watch or has never played basketball.

You mistakenly assume your own subjective impression is objective
fact.

> Abdur Raheem stays on the blocks and gets rebounds. 
> Garnett keeps his game inside the 3 point line.  As
> does Duncan and Webber.  I'm sure all of these
> mentioned players can hit the 3 BUT YOU DON'T SEE THEM
> TAKING 3s.  They play to their strengths and because
> of that they are all-stars.  So be objective Noah and
> tell me why Toine is not in that same class.

I'd say you were comparing apples to oranges. You yourself said that
Antoine lacks some of the physical tools of those other players. I
agree that toine should learn to pass off drives. But Antoine's three
point shooting is one of the ways he puts larger, stronger and faster
players at a disadvantage. Typical power forwards are better post
defenders than they are perimeter defenders. Against stronger power
forwards Twon goes to the perimeter to maximize his comparative
advantage.

It's not the most effective part of Antoine's game, but he's certainly
more effective using that side of his game than trying to post up
against players that will almost certainly beat him defensively in the
post.

That's also the reason that Antoine only took one three in the
Washington game. Washington played him exclusively with smaller,
weaker players and Antoine took advantage. 

> Furthermore if you would actually read the posts in
> its entirety instead of going off on small bits of it,
> you would see I do explain myself and not just spit
> out random subjective statements.  

You're still mistaking your own subjective impression for objective
fact. You can reasonably prove that Walker does things are ill
advised. But you can't prove that he's unintelligent. Your
explainations miss that distinction. That's what everyone takes issue
with.

No-one but Toine himself and the people around him know if he's
stupid, evil or whatever. Thinking you can prove anything regarding
Walker as person from his behavior on the court and his relationship
with Pitino is overreaching.

Noah