not every team has the luxury the heat enjoys of being able to just plug in a back-up like christian laettner who was DOMINANT with 4 points in 12 minutes
<kstarheel@cox.net> wrote...> nash= 27 and 17> shap= out and his team rolls>
Maybe Wade should have been MVP, but certainly not Shaq.>
i'm not attempting to contradict you when i add the following info, because i agree with the wade assessment. but it bears mentioning (again) when comparing shaq and nash (and only those two) that nash's former team (mavs) still made the play-offs this year without him while kobe's lakers fell flat without shaq this season. i'm not certain how you factor that into this year's equation, but it makes me wonder how mcuh of the reg season mvp is substance and how much of it is the nba spin machine playing to the crowd. all i know is that i *do* like watching nash and teh rest of the suns run the floor and pile up points and i don't enjoy watching shaq bully his way for a dunk. and i've also enjoyed watching the heat more without shaq in the lineup. but that's just me.
i've also enjoyed ray allen's inspired performance during the playoffs. sometimes he appears unstoppable.
Maybe Wade should have been MVP, but certainly not Shaq.>>
i'm not attempting to contradict you when i add the following info, because > i agree with the wade assessment. but it bears mentioning (again) when > comparing shaq and nash (and only those two) that nash's former team (mavs) > still made the play-offs this year without him while kobe's lakers fell flat > without shaq this season. i'm not certain how you factor that into this
Such a fact should not be considered at all in the MVP voting. There are far too many other reasons why a club may flop after a player leaves. On the other hand, there is direct evidence that the Phoenix Suns were a vastly inferior team without Nash in the lineup.
Maybe Wade should have been MVP, but certainly not Shaq.>>>
i'm not attempting to contradict you when i add the following info, >> because i agree with the wade assessment. but it bears mentioning >> (again) when comparing shaq and nash (and only those two) that nash's >> former team (mavs) still made the play-offs this year without him while >> kobe's lakers fell flat without shaq this season. i'm not certain how >> you factor that into this>
Such a fact should not be considered at all in the MVP voting.
i don't disagree. that's why i said i'm not sure how you factor it into the mvp equation (if you're one of the voters). my assumption is there probably were some voters who did make it a factor when they considered who to vote for. not the solitary reason, just one of many factors when considering where to cast their vote.
i also have to wonder if voting for a johannesburg-born, canada-raised, white point guard from santa clara was a factor. wanna bet the nba front-office mind control wasn't interested in seeing a non-traditional player win the mvp as they look to expand their global market base?
"Erik T. Nomad" <erikthenomad@hotmail.com> wrote in <news:4287ead5$0$29210$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net>:
I love it that two people you think of as homos are getting more> tail than you ever could and ever will. And one of 'em has a> championship ring, to boot.
But Witzke thinks of /everyone/ he has a crush on as homo; some of them were bound to get championship rings at some point.
Meanwhile, I just googled Rick Fox to see what he's up to. Apparently, he is trying to get a divorce from Vanessa Williams, but she is clinging to him. Troubles like that remind me how glad I am I didn't declare for the NBA after my junior or senior years.
If using WebTV doesn't make you feel low enough on the totem pole> of life, maybe that'll help bring you to reality.
Maybe, but the adrenaline rush of seeing his #1 fantasy coaching his favorite team again next season is sure to take him right back out of it.
Charlie Board <charlieDIESPAMMERSboard@nc.rr.com> was rumored to have said:> kstarheel@cox.net wrote:>> nash= 27 and 17>> shap= out and his team rolls>>
Maybe Wade should have been MVP, but certainly not Shaq.>>
Amare has scored 107 points in the first 3 games> of the Dallas series. 35.7 ppg. He's been> better than Wade. So where does that put Nash?
he wouldn't know what to do if it wasn't for Nash telling him where to go?
-joseph [how about the fact that Nash couldn't guard a three-legged dog?]
Uh, Nash had 48 last night. Hmmmm, not too bad for a white guy. A> little White guy.>
yup, i was really impressed by that. unfortunately, the suns lost and, some apparently still maintain, *that* negates a stellar mvp-worthy performance in the league.
Edward M. Kennedy 17 May 2005 00:01:33 [ permanent link ]
<kstarheel@cox.net> wrote
Wow.... Christian passed the 2nd round. Nicely done. Maybe he'll> > > score 10 points soon too. Any more Dookies hanging on to better> > > players' coat tails?> >
Calling Rick Fox. Calling Rick Fox. Your presence is requested on> > this thread.>
<kstarheel@cox.net> wrote in message news:1116266562.280582.20470@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...>
Erik T. Nomad wrote:> > <kstarheel@cox.net> wrote in message> > news:1116248776.982686.249390@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> > >
Charlie Board wrote:> > > > kstarheel@cox.net wrote:> > > > > nash= 27 and 17> > > > > shap= out and his team rolls> > > > >
Maybe Wade should have been MVP, but certainly not Shaq.> > > > >
Amare has scored 107 points in the first 3 games> > > > of the Dallas series. 35.7 ppg. He's been> > > > better than Wade. So where does that put Nash?> > >
Uh, Nash had 48 last night. Hmmmm, not too bad for a white guy. A> > > little White guy.> >
Nice racism, fuckhead.> >
I'm quoting a BLACK sports writer that recently called Nash that on> ESPN.com. So blast him, not me moron. Read a little....
There is no question that Nash is a "little white guy." That's not the problem; the assumption that he shouldn't be held to the same standard as others because he's white is the problem. Not surprisingly, you're completely unclear as to which part of that quote the writer is responsible for, but if he did say "not bad for a whie guy", he should be canned just as a white sports writer would be if he said "not bad for a black guy" when commenting on a player's college grades.
Michael Sullivan 17 May 2005 22:33:50 [ permanent link ]
<kstarheel@cox.net> wrote:
Well, it's a bigoted view, not a racist view. Racism is believing YOU> are better than ALL other members of a particular race. So, the writer> is a bigot, not a racist.
Wow. I'm glad we have you around to iron out these subtle distinctions for us.
Tell us more about minority relations, Professor kstarheel. I eagerly await your pearl of wisdom.
Edward M. Kennedy 18 May 2005 01:15:13 [ permanent link ]
"Michael Sullivan" <michael@bcect.com> wrote
Well, it's a bigoted view, not a racist view. Racism is believing YOU> > are better than ALL other members of a particular race. So, the writer> > is a bigot, not a racist.
That's not quite true. For example, many light skinned blacks think they are smarter than dark skinned blacks in general, but they don't think they are necessarily smarter than *all* dark skinned blacks.
Wow. I'm glad we have you around to iron out these subtle distinctions> for us.
He might have a defensable position if the subject were anything but race. Anybody got a good segue into dumb blond jokes?
Tell us more about minority relations, Professor kstarheel.
Speak of the devil! I bet he *is* in the minority when it comes to blond relations.
--Tedward
You think Ah-Nold is a tough politician? In committee I'm known as THE MEDIATOR!
"Edward M. Kennedy" <nospam@baconburger.com> wrote in message news:d6dmr8$ha4$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...> "Michael Sullivan" <michael@bcect.com> wrote>
Well, it's a bigoted view, not a racist view. Racism is believing
are better than ALL other members of a particular race. So, the
writer> > > is a bigot, not a racist.>
That's not quite true. For example, many light skinned blacks> think they are smarter than dark skinned blacks in general, but> they don't think they are necessarily smarter than *all* dark> skinned blacks.>
Wow. I'm glad we have you around to iron out these subtle distinctions> > for us.>
He might have a defensable position if the subject were anything> but race. Anybody got a good segue into dumb blond jokes?
What do you call a blonde doing a headstand? A brunette with bad breath.
OK, there's no segue, but did we really need one?
Tell us more about minority relations, Professor kstarheel.>
Speak of the devil! I bet he *is* in the minority when it comes> to blond relations.
Well, it ain't Witzke; there are a lot of scandinavian boys in the north central states.
"Edward M. Kennedy" <nospam@baconburger.com> wrote in message news:d6fpgh$lci$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...> "Erik T. Nomad" <erikthenomad@hotmail.com> wrote>
What do you call a blonde doing a headstand? A brunette with bad
breath.> >
OK, there's no segue, but did we really need one?>
Duke cheerleaders, maybe?
Usually a little too rotund to make it to full headstand.
Tell us more about minority relations, Professor kstarheel.> > >
Speak of the devil! I bet he *is* in the minority when it comes> > > to blond relations.> >
Well, it ain't Witzke; there are a lot of scandinavian boys in the north> > central states.>
I meant his relations with blonds are in the minority, not himself.
Yep, I got it, as in it ain't Witzke 'cause he's got lots of relations with blonde men. A) slow down on the gin, B) good thing my hair's brown.
