Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

aren't we stuck in mediocrity?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Puffer wrote: View Post
    You seemed to line up a bunch of the worst case scenarios and then proclaim that the Raps would be stuck in mediocrity because these worst case scenarios had a higher probability of occurring then any of the more positive ones.

    I think that is what people take issue with. Only a few people here actively wearing blinders, but nobody likes a doom and gloom proponent :-)
    I'm not outlining worst-case scenarios, I'm pointing out that unless a small miracle happens the Raps have no reason to expect anything better than mediocrity.

    Look at the scenario you outlined in your third paragraph. IF everything you mention happens, the Raps are still not a contender, not even close. A core of Lowry, Bargs and Val with a deep bench is nowhere close to talented enough unless Val turns out to be roughly a top-10 player in the league. This thread isn't about whether the Raps have reason for optimism; I've already stated that they do and that I'm excited for the upcoming season. This thread is about whether the Raps can become contenders, and it's EXTREMELY unlikely that they can without having another team hand them a disgruntled franchise player on the cheap because they almost certainly won't be acquiring one through the draft and they haven't shown they can lure one through free agency.

    So call it doom and gloom if you want, but I call it reality. Mediocrity is still a big step in the right direction for the franchise, but apparently once you type 'mediocrity' it really gets people heated.

    Comment


    • #92
      Lark Benson wrote: View Post
      ...So call it doom and gloom if you want, but I call it reality. Mediocrity is still a big step in the right direction for the franchise, but apparently once you type 'mediocrity' it really gets people heated.
      Like I said, words have meanings. "mediocre - moderate to inferior in quality" or average to below average.

      If you assume that making the play-offs is "average or below average" then the Raps may very well be stuck there for a few years. If you were using the term "mediocrity" to mean "not being contenders (for the championship - ie. making it to semi-finals)" then that is stretching the meaning of mediocrity out of sight.

      Readers initial reactions were to your use of the term. Maybe they saw it as meaning something you didn't intend.

      Comment


      • #93
        Lark Benson wrote: View Post
        I'm not outlining worst-case scenarios, I'm pointing out that unless a small miracle happens the Raps have no reason to expect anything better than mediocrity...

        So call it doom and gloom if you want, but I call it reality. Mediocrity is still a big step in the right direction for the franchise, but apparently once you type 'mediocrity' it really gets people heated.
        I think this is the rub. What you consider "making an argument" looks to others like you are making a statement of fact. It's all in the way you position your "opinion" of the current and future state of the roster. IMO, you haven't made any kind of argument for what you think is going to happen -- you've simply stated what you believe is going to happen as if it's inevitable, and to top it all off, you've cast aspersions on those who don't agree with what you believe is going to happen, suggesting that they aren't living in the reality that you are.

        The bottom line is this:

        - The Raptors cap situation, as it sits currently, is fantastic when compared to the majority of teams around the league. This is fact, not a personal belief. The only overpaid asset on the roster is Calderon, who is expiring. I suppose one could make an argument for Amir, but I personally see him as good value at $7M. Bargnani is a flat-out bargain, rebounding stats included.

        - The Raptors players, as they currently sit, are generally a rising bunch. Of those considered "core" (at the moment; could change at any point due to transactions), you'd be hard-pressed to call anyone capped out on their potential with the possible exceptions of Bargs and Derozan, and saying so about either of those two would be pessimistic at this point, given what we've seen in preseason.

        You are correct that contracts will come up for renewal in 2 years, and decisions will have to be made. Welcome to the NBA. Toronto is no different from any other franchise in this regard. But their cap situation says they're in better position than most to deal with this challenge.

        Look, you can say you're a realist, but actually you're a pessimist. That's fine as paint, but don't let it cloud your judgement to the point that you think your future-prediction is any better than anyone else's, optimist or pessimist.
        Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.

        Comment


        • #94
          fuck me, if I wasn't so busy studying/having fun I would respond to people putting words in my mouth. But I simply don't care enough. I feel sorry for lark who is trying to make good arguments, but then have you idiots arguing semantics with him. Makes me question the quality/intelligence of the people on this board........

          Comment


          • #95
            akashsingh wrote: View Post
            ...I feel sorry for lark who is trying to make good arguments, but then have you idiots arguing semantics with him...
            You can't have a good argument if the meaning of your statements/words is not clear. This is not arguing semantics. If I say mediocrity, and mean "better than average, just not great," that has a different meaning than the dictionary assigns to that word, which is average or lower. If you then respond to my argument based on the dictionary definition, we wind up chasing our tails.

            In a recent post I made an argument and tried to prove it by using some incorrect stats that I scraped from a career "pre-season" record, as opposed to a career season record. Muddled thinking. My bad. But if you get upset with me because I respond to something you said, and you are not using a words accepted definition, your bad. That's not arguing semantics, that's you not expressing yourself clearly.

            Lark has said that his post was rather hastily put together at work, and he wasn't pretending it to be a high level analysis. No problem. I can see that. However, that is not how it came across when I first read it. Lark seemed to be making some pretty definitive statements. People responded. If they were just casual, off-hand observations, that's a different kettle of fish. In that case, my "Whatever" response was completely appropriate. In any case, like I said before, words have meanings. if you want to have a serious discussion, don't be lazy. If you just want to shoot the shit, no prob. But don't get wound up if I respond, "Yeah, right. Whatever"

            Comment


            • #96
              akashsingh wrote: View Post
              fuck me, if I wasn't so busy studying/having fun I would respond to people putting words in my mouth. But I simply don't care enough. I feel sorry for lark who is trying to make good arguments, but then have you idiots arguing semantics with him. Makes me question the quality/intelligence of the people on this board........
              Take it easy akashsing, that really wasn't necessary.

              To those people arguing with Lark (and yourself), I'm sure they're just as frustrated... that's what having a difference of opinion is all about.

              I think the discussion/debate in this thread has been pretty intelligent, well thought out and well expressed. Please don't help degrade the discussion into immature name calling by coming on and doing nothing but just that.

              Comment


              • #97
                you can say you're a realist, but actually you're a pessimist.
                The center is always to the right of the left, and to the left of the right.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Craiger wrote: View Post
                  The center is always to the right of the left, and to the left of the right.
                  Are you questioning the definition of optimism vs. pessimism now? This isn't politics, a right vs. left, ideology-driven argument. It's future-prediction of a sports team. There's no "realism" to be had, one way or the other. You're either optimistic or pessimistic based on your perception of how future events might occur. Feel free to discuss potential future events as if they are inevitable, but if you think you're right and the other side is wrong, well, that's just silly, ignorant, and arrogant. That was my point.
                  Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    jimmie wrote: View Post
                    Are you questioning the definition of optimism vs. pessimism now? This isn't politics, a right vs. left, ideology-driven argument. It's future-prediction of a sports team. There's no "realism" to be had, one way or the other. You're either optimistic or pessimistic based on your perception of how future events might occur. Feel free to discuss potential future events as if they are inevitable, but if you think you're right and the other side is wrong, well, that's just silly, ignorant, and arrogant. That was my point.
                    Well if there is no realism to be had then "a pessimist" can't possibly have clouded judgement, or at the very least everyone's opinion is equally clouded.

                    Anyways, my statement was just a point it was not political.

                    The optimists tends to think anyone not optimistic is a pessimist. Pessimists tend to think anyone not pessimistic is an optimist. Each side thinks the others 'mism' is clouding their judgement and they are the realist.



                    but if you think you're right and the other side is wrong, well, that's just silly, ignorant, and arrogant
                    really? you mean like:

                    The bottom line is this:

                    - The Raptors cap situation, as it sits currently, is fantastic when compared to the majority of teams around the league. This is fact, not a personal belief

                    hmmmm. Funny how that works isn't it?


                    Lark clearly stated his opinion. He said it was his opinion. He is stating it on a basketball forum filled with opinion. How anyone can think he isn't clearly expressing an opinion is mind boggling. And ofcourse he thinks his opinion is right? Why would he argue it if he didn't?

                    Comment


                    • Craiger wrote: View Post
                      Well if there is no realism to be had then "a pessimist" can't possibly have clouded judgement, or at the very least everyone's opinion is equally clouded. The optimists tends to think anyone not optimistic is a pessimist. Pessimists tend to think anyone not pessimistic is an optimist. Each side thinks the others 'mism' is clouding their judgement and they are the realist.
                      Yes, this is entirely true, and was exactly my point. Thanks for backing me up.

                      Craiger wrote: View Post
                      Lark clearly stated his opinion. He said it was his opinion. He is stating it on a basketball forum filled with opinion. How anyone can think he isn't clearly expressing an opinion is mind boggling. And ofcourse he thinks his opinion is right? Why would he argue it if he didn't?
                      He didn't state it as opinion. That's the problem. And he basically noted anyone not on board with his "opinion" is not a realist. When you state an opinion, reasonable people generally accept that there exist other, possibly equally-valid opinions. That's not the case here, which again, was my point. You can argue that opinions without any substantiation as to 'why' that opinion exists are the stock-in-trade of the internet if you want. That doesn't make it 'reasonable discussion'.

                      BTW, re your quoted text from my reply: the Raptors cap situation IS fact, not opinion. How you 'feel' about the cap situation is your opinion, but they have money to spend and are not strapped by unworkable contracts. It's different from saying, for instance, that if the Raptors aren't making a deep playoff run within two years, Lowry will definitely leave.
                      Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.

                      Comment


                      • jimmie wrote: View Post
                        Yes, this is entirely true, and was exactly my point. Thanks for backing me up.



                        He didn't state it as opinion. That's the problem. And he basically noted anyone not on board with his "opinion" is not a realist. When you state an opinion, reasonable people generally accept that there exist other, possibly equally-valid opinions. That's not the case here, which again, was my point. You can argue that opinions without any substantiation as to 'why' that opinion exists are the stock-in-trade of the internet if you want. That doesn't make it 'reasonable discussion'.

                        BTW, re your quoted text from my reply: the Raptors cap situation IS fact, not opinion. How you 'feel' about the cap situation is your opinion, but they have money to spend and are not strapped by unworkable contracts. It's different from saying, for instance, that if the Raptors aren't making a deep playoff run within two years, Lowry will definitely leave.
                        but that is just your opinion, like craiger said he believes he is right. Here's an idea why don't you come up with an argument to contradict his opinion instead of overdosing on estrogen pills.

                        Comment


                        • jimmie wrote: View Post
                          Yes, this is entirely true, and was exactly my point. Thanks for backing me up.



                          He didn't state it as opinion. That's the problem. And he basically noted anyone not on board with his "opinion" is not a realist. When you state an opinion, reasonable people generally accept that there exist other, possibly equally-valid opinions. That's not the case here, which again, was my point. You can argue that opinions without any substantiation as to 'why' that opinion exists are the stock-in-trade of the internet if you want. That doesn't make it 'reasonable discussion'.

                          BTW, re your quoted text from my reply: the Raptors cap situation IS fact, not opinion. How you 'feel' about the cap situation is your opinion, but they have money to spend and are not strapped by unworkable contracts. It's different from saying, for instance, that if the Raptors aren't making a deep playoff run within two years, Lowry will definitely leave.

                          I was hardly backing you up. If you trully believe what I said and what you claim to be saying, then there was no reason to call anyone a 'pessimist' as being a pessimist (or optimist) has no bearing. It would technically be impossible as there is no reality. We would all just be. You even mentioning that would indicate that you believe there is a possible 'reality' (and therefore there is realism) one that you may not share with Lark. However its somehow Lark's reality that is 'clouded' by his 'pessimism'?


                          I don't think he could have been more blunt:

                          I'm presenting the reasons for my opinion
                          Now even if thats missed, the environment he is making his points in should clearly indicate its an opinion. Ofcourse if there is no realism, then everything is clearly opinion, so how could you even question what he's saying is doing anything other than presenting an opinion?

                          His first statement came by responding to:

                          If you cant see the improvement and growth from the raptors as a whole something is wrong with you.
                          yet its Lark's comments that get harped on for 'presenting opinion as fact', or not 'reasonable discussion'? He was very much responding to someone who did that very thing. Yet he gets a response of "whatever"? (from another) If you trully believe what you say is true (ie. no realism, 'reasonable discussion' yada yada yada)... you should be supporting Lark. Yet......




                          Anyways enough philosophy. To actual facts - while their current exact cap room is a fact, its "situation", let alone that situation being "fantastic", is not fact. That is all opinion. See how easy it is to mistakenly present fact as opinion? Or believe your opinion is fact? Or question whether one is presenting opinion as fact?


                          Needless to say I'll go back to my initial statement. The center is always right of the left, and left of the right. Where you sit dictates what you view as 'fact', 'opinion' and 'reality'; and what and how you view the others 'facts', 'opinions' and 'realities'. But its those sitting too far on one side or the other, that are loath to realize this.
                          Last edited by Craiger; Tue Oct 30th, 2012, 01:38 PM.

                          Comment


                          • It's been more than 20 messages since anything basketball-related has actually been discussed and this thread has become a pissing match about semantics and the metaphysical existence of preferred/perceived realities... which tells me that it's time to close this thread.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X