Re: Terry vs. Ray
posted at 3/20/2013 10:44 AM EDT
In response to Gasthoerer's comment:
In response to Fierce34's comment:
The numbers don't lie. For the last 3 seasons the Celts averaged 38.6, 38.8, and 38.8 rpg. This season the Celts are averaging 39.92 rpg.
Like I said before "Do you belive the stork brings the children?"
Your stat is totally meaningless as
1) there is no causality to Ray's absence (cause many other parameters changed)
2) the stat doesn't tell if this is a good rebounding team.
The highest significance (that doesn't mean high absolute) of your measure is at the beginning of the season (cause less parameters are changed). And here it is even the other way around our numbers went down. That is no proof that we are a better rebounding team with Ray but fur sure it doesn't support your hypothesis.
By the way: If you say that getting younger will make us a better reboudning team. And then claim that 35 < 37 this implies that Terry already will makes us younger and therfore better on the boards.
And to concord27: Terry tried to score more but lost the ball twice against Ray. Is this doc's fault or maybe Ray is not that lazy at the defensive end?
I'm sorry; I'm reading this and honestly attempting to determine what you are trying to say. Starting a sentence with "If" has
to lead to some sort of conclusion in the same sentence.
That's only one grammatical incongruity, and they occur with frightening regularity. Slow down (time is not
of the essence here) when writing and give yourself a chance to form your sentences to strengthen your argument, an argument that may in itself be valid; however, if you can't succinctly state your view, the writing fails and the meaning is lost. Using fewer sentences and putting in bulletpointed phrases (it's an option on the ribbon at the bottom) instead might make your posts infinitely more readable.
I don't think anyone has said or believes Ray is "lazy", they're just saying that he's slow to react defensively. Whether that's rooted in age, ability, or commitment (unlikely, he a genuine professional) is irrelevant because the bottom line is simply that his defensive deficiencies have been very much in evidence in the last five years when he's been called upon to defend or be part of a rotational defensive scheme. In truth, how many truly great shooters or scorers have also been great defenders? I don't mean like the phony "all-defensive" teams that Jordan and Bryant have made, but real, lock-down defenders? Historically, Wilt was one (scorer), Havlichek, Walt Frazier, JoJo showed it, and KG has always been there, but because defense is a total buy-in, most players can't summon the energy to go equally hard both ways.