wolf stansson

http://soccer365.com/us_news/story_21409182317.php If Benny's back, Edu is playing at Rangers, Sacha gets his groove back, Torres continues to feature for Pachuca, Clint continues to be indispensable and unbenchable, Mastro pulls a Hejduk, Bradley is unbenchable and no one gets hurt we are all of a sudden very deep in the middle. Unfortunately none of them are true wingers.

Heh, exactly was a poor choice of words. My whole point was, PER alone doesn't accurately rank Paul Pierce's value.

I just read this and I'm curious what you got out of it, because what I got out of it, this part: is exactly what I said here: It's a good tool, but it stops far short of telling the whole story when ranking a player if it's the only tool you're going by.

"as well as" Yeah, saw that. It just didn't make sense. PER has flaws. Got it. But there's no verb after as well as. His diminished role does what? His defensive contributions mean what? I made the leap that you were suggesting a diminished role hurt Pierce's production, so I pointed out that PER accounts for that. For the record, I don't like that you make me defend Paul Pierce, an annoying turd of a player who throws Crip signs during NBA games. That said, Paul Pierce is a very good defensive player. PER doesn't account for defense accurately. In fact, the defensive stats it does use, steals and blocks, skew a player's perceived statistical defensive ability (see Thomas, Tyrus and his affect on Derrick Rose's fouls in the first quarter of last game). Evaluating Paul Pierce's rank in the NBA hierarchy based solely on a stat that doesn't factor defense is seriously flawed. As to the diminished role and PER accounting for that, I think it does a bad job. I mean, it still measures the player's per-minute efficiency, but that doesn't accurately reflect the bigger numbers a player like Pierce would put up with the ball in his hand more and a larger offensive role. Pretty obvious to me that, say, Michael Jordan wouldn't put up as high a PER with the Dream Team as he would with the Bulls because his role was diminished. So no, I don't think PER accurately measures a player's ability. It's why the NBA still requires the layman to have a more sophisticated "eye test" than the lay baseball fan who can just rely on advanced statistical analysis and have a better understanding of the value of a player's contributions that someone who just watches the games without paying attention to stats. Keep in mind, I already admitted to assigning Pierce as a "top 10 NBA player" out of laziness to make a point. What I'm speaking to here is purely your use of PER as an indictment on his actual rank in the NBA hierarchy.

When is Ryan Babel getting sold or played?

"as well as"

I said some of the names mentioned were hilarious. PER has plenty of flaws as well as Pierce's diminished role with Garnett and Allen on the team and his defensive contributions.

I'm willing to admit that I pulled top 10 out of thin air for the sake of making the point that Pierce and the Celtics haven't played their best, but some of those names on that list are hilarious.

I think maybe Wenger should have started Arshavin against Chelsea.

A) Steve Francis was not bad at basketball. He was, in fact, very good at basketball. Derrick Rose will be better, but the comparison is as close as it gets in terms of speed, agility, coordination, finishing in the trees and ability as a point guard to play above the rim. B) You guys all like the LeBron comparison because it favorably compares our team's best player with the best, most gifted basketball player on the planet. The comparison is bad.

Never thought of him as a 6'3" Lebron. Decent comparison, but Lebron is much stronger. Lebron is built like a LB. I think it's a terrible comparison. Hilariously terrible. They're both physically gifted basketball players for their position, but their positions/game are way too different to make comparisons. He's stronger, better passing Steve Francis or more athletic, bigger Isiah Thomas.

Paul Pierce is one of the 10 best NBA players and has sucked. The C game comment is probably dead on.

Tim is a sharp dressed man commenting on stoning Fergie and Co.

I will run your [expletive] into the ground. Believe it.

What. Perhaps I'm wrong, but there has to have been a good chance back in the early-to-mid 90's when the Bulls/Blackhawks each won playoff contests and the Cubs/White Sox won games. While thats probably true, I think the weekend was magnified because of how the Cubs, Bulls, and Hawks won. Cubs win on a walk off against long time hated rival, Bulls win on the road in OT against the defending Champs, and the Hawks come back from a 2-0 deficit to win. I wont go so far as to say its the greatest day in Chicago sports, but it definately was 1 hell of a good day for a fan of of 3 teams. I'm thinking any day a championship is won by one of your teams, it's better than two playoff victories and a regular season win against a rival.

What.

The officiating is bad, but it's the playoffs. The enforcers need to realize there job changes in the playoffs. They can't take stupid penalties. Make big hits, but don't instigate scrums like that. And that's why. Bernier continues to haunt us this game.

Cheap shot by Bernier there at the end. Totally boarded Steen and got away with it. I hope my guy (Backes) doesn't get anything for retaliating.

Mo Edu scored the winner for Rangers.

Freddy made the bench at Monaco, Onyewu had a brace, Bradley missed a penalty today.

No dp, plz.

Bad things happen when you walk Aaron Miles. Law of the universe.

It's because I'm from Illinois.

Talking about likelihood is useful before something happens. Afterward it is irrelevant. It happened. Now you know that everyone who said it wouldn't happen was wrong. Comparing him to Hoffpauir is something you could have done back when you knew less about him. And as I type... Yeah you proved my point wrong because Ludwick hit a home run as we were discussing this. Is GWRB down today or something? What? The homerun was an ironic coincidence. Also, what can I say? Talking to you guys about Ryan Ludwick is more fun than complaining about Tony LaRussa.

Talking about likelihood is useful before something happens. Afterward it is irrelevant. It happened. Now you know that everyone who said it wouldn't happen was wrong. Comparing him to Hoffpauir is something you could have done back when you knew less about him. And as I type...