Stautner;3955125 said:
Wow, I guess you don't beleive the Cowboys Offensive line played poorly because you don't have a statistical analysis of how effectively every player blocked on every pass play.
Well I can tell you that if I made a claim about the Cowboys offensive line play, and someone disagreed with me, I would try to do some sort of statistical analysis or try to prove my claims in some way. I wouldn't just sit there and claim Hudson Houck or someone said so, and it's simply obvious, and anyone who couldn't see it is clueless about offensive line play. I've yet to see anything substantive from you that even attempts to prove your stance in this situation. You're just being conclusory, and anyone who doesn't agree with your conclusion probably hasn't seen a women's game live and is clueless about basketball. That's not an argument at all.
And basketball is so much more transparent than that. Once again you are proving over and over and over again how completely clueless you are about the game. It's a simple thing to watch a game and see that a team consistently does a good job in certain areas. For a person to suggest that a knowledgeable person cannot see and understand what they see on the court without conducting detailed research project only shows that person has no practical knowledege of the game at all.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're not saying anything substantive. If anyone disagrees with your opinion, they're clueless.
Hell, by saying that only by conducting a research project is it possible to understand what happens on a basketball court is such a huge indictment of your credibility on the topic of basketball that it really is humorous that you can't see it. You are essentially saying that you don't know enough to understand what you see, so everyone else must be just as ignorant of the game as you are.
I didn't say it's the ONLY way to prove your stance. It's one way. In this thread certain people have cited players who are known as outstanding fundamental players, and there have been videos shown of great fundamental play. Here's the highlight package from nba.com on Game 1 of the ECF.
[youtubehd]291XAtHVO78&NR=1[/youtubehd]
In just about every single play, I can pick out an outstanding fundamental play. You probably watch it and get distracted by the dunks and long-distance shots, because they're flashy and you have some form of ADD... but that doesn't mean the fundamentals aren't there.
And since you seem to be fixated on the particular fundamental of blocking out and proper rebound positioning, I specifically took note of at least 10 block-outs in what amounts to a 2 minute highlight package mostly filled with dunks and fast breaks where you're not going to get block-outs.
I could do this all day, but I don't feel like wasting hours and hours of time when I know you're just going to disagree. You're the most closed-minded person on this board, and that's saying a lot considering all the lockout debates going on.
Hell, I didn't even bring up the Wooden comment until well into it, and it wasn't even me that borught it up to begin with. But, again, you continuing to pass of Wooden's thoughts as inconsequential and mere "preception" is just more of an indictment of your credibility on the topic.
Strawman.
Let's add to it that i actually do go see games live - women's and men's. At a number of levels. You admit you don't watch the women play, yet my "perception" means nothing.
Yet another misstatement. I didn't admit that I don't watch women play. I've watched a number of women's games. Apparently you think you have to see them live to catch the fundamental superiority. I think that's ridiculous. I can see fundamentals, and the lack thereof on TV. You have to know what to look for and not always focus on the ball, and I know how to do that.
Not to mention that if women's basketball as a whole was better fundamentally than men's basketball, you wouldn't see the same teams winning just about every year in the biggest women's league in the country. There is so little depth in women's college ball it's laughable.
NMow, you can keep putting down the Wooden comment if you want, but let's see you come up with any knowledgeable people that agree with your point of view.
That's the only thing propping your argument up. This thread is the first time I've seen the actual quote, but I still haven't seen it in context, or in the original article that shows when he said it and with the rest of his thoughts on the subject. I'd like to see it.
But I'm not "putting it down." I'm disagreeing with using that quote as an entire basis for an argument that the women are more fundamentally sound than men. And that's all you're doing.
Out of all the points made in this argument, yours has essentially boiled down to -- "Wooden said it, and I can see it. If you disagree you're just not knowledgeable about the game." That's not a real argument. It's a conclusion. Anyone can make a conclusion. Not anyone can back up their conclusion though. You haven't been able to do that.
And if I simply propped up my argument with a person who said the NBA players have the best fundamentals, my argument would be just as nonexistent as yours is. And even if I spent the time searching for it, you'd probably claim it had less merit because it wasn't Wooden who said it.
The fact of the matter is that fundamentals are taught to male basketball players at an early age. Every single player in the NBA has them. They wouldn't have risen through the ranks and become the best of the best without them. And you somehow think that they all of a sudden forgot the fundamentals when they made it to the NBA? The real story is that the athleticism of NBA players is what separates the elite from the people who just have fundamentals. Your "argument" falls apart at every level if you think about it, though I know how hard that is for you.
