Re: Blame Jordan!

[bird <birdwl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: "Lance Jacobson" <lancejacob@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> If you choose to believe that everything comes down to Pierce, so be 
> it.  I didn't
> criticize PP in that post, only that Mercer responded to his arrival 
> by joining the
> Arc Club.  FYI, in the '98-'99 season, Mercer played 40 vs. 81 games 
> in the prior
> year, but took 707 shots vs. 586 he'd have taken at the prior season's 
> rate.  Sure, he
> was playing for his contract and firing it up, and he did double his 
> 3pt shooting
> rate.  And he got to the line less often as well.
I think you're missing one of Alex's points, which was that 
characterizing Mercer's three-point outlet as "doubled" is problematic, 
as what he really did was shoot the same amount over half the previous 
time period, which, while being similar, isn't quite the same, as well 
as the fact that, with such small numbers, the statistics are called 
into question.  "2" is double "1", for instance, but the difference is 
negligible.  You said that Mercer started firing it from beyond the 
arc, but I believe people are trying to tell you that the amount of 
shots you're talking about (30 or so) makes for a negligible 
distinction.  Walkerpierce takes four games to get to that number; 
Mercer took 41.  He can hardly be accusing of "jacking it up."

In addition, you've got a lot of cojones to accuse someone else of 
thinking "that everything comes down to Pierce" when you yourself use 
him as a sort of litmus test for everything.  In the same vein, you 
*did* criticize Pierce in that post, because you used his arrival as 
the impetus for Mercer to be jacking up all those threes.  To whit:

"Now, perhaps arithmetic isn't your strong suit, but with the arrival 
of Pierce, he doubled his three point shooting.  DOUBLED IT."

Actually, to me, this exposes nearly all of your idiosyncrasies: 
berating people ("now, perhaps arithmetic isn't your strong suit..."), 
your anti-Pierce bias ("with the arrival of Pierce..."), your bad 
interpretation of statistics (...he doubled his three point 
shooting..."), and, of course, your emphasis-as-evidence tack, or "if I 
repeat myself enough, it's bound to be convincing", ("DOUBLED IT").

You're entitled to your opinions, obviously, but don't expect people to 
just take what you as gospel without thinking it through first, either.

Bird