# Game #55: New Orleans Hornets (32-20) @ Los Angeles Lakers (44-10) [2/20]



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)




----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Payback for the list time we played them at Staples.


----------



## sylaw (Nov 7, 2002)

Basel said:


> Payback for the list time we played them at Staples.


Yep. I want a convincing win and for us to shut down David West. No way we're going to have him tear us a new one again.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

Btw, Butler's eyes are pretty red in that picture.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I have a good feeling about this one.


----------



## KoBeUrself (Mar 28, 2008)

it appears as though we won't be screwed by ESPN, game might actually start on time


----------



## CPIII (Jan 13, 2009)

Hornets are going to need to play one hell of a game.. and once again.. rely on Paul hardcore.

I feel bad for CP3, having to do everything..

GL.


----------



## Tooeasy (Nov 4, 2003)

Hornets came out and laid a whoopin on the magic the other night, I feel like their playing with a chip on their shoulder after all the negativity the media is directing towards the core group of players. I expect a very high intensity game tonight.


----------



## KoBeUrself (Mar 28, 2008)

if kobe gets that deep this early, it could be a long night for new orleans


----------



## KoBeUrself (Mar 28, 2008)

courtside seats are slow filling tonight...


----------



## KoBeUrself (Mar 28, 2008)

great defensive rebounding so far....awesome


----------



## KoBeUrself (Mar 28, 2008)

luke is playing really really well tonight


----------



## CPIII (Jan 13, 2009)

dont worry.. lakers won.


hornets cant make anything.. once that fails.. we fail.

gg


----------



## Tooeasy (Nov 4, 2003)

luke ****in walton, thats not in the playbook.....


----------



## CPIII (Jan 13, 2009)

1 shot 1 assist, and hes playing really really well? low standards..


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Kobe's getting to the line early.


----------



## KoBeUrself (Mar 28, 2008)

CPIII said:


> 1 shot 1 assist, and hes playing really really well? low standards..


i have low standards for luke so that when he does something ridiculously stupid, i don't get p*ssed

and luke has 5 pts, a 3, and 3 assists, not just 1 and 1


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Of course Fisher's gonna miss the wide open three and then foul Paul...


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Lamar with a right handed finish???


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Offensive rebounds are awesome.


----------



## KoBeUrself (Mar 28, 2008)

hornets keep hackin, cheaters...


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Lol at the Chris Paul flop, you would have thought that he'd been hit by a bus or something.


----------



## KoBeUrself (Mar 28, 2008)

VanillaPrice said:


> Lol at the Chris Paul flop, you would have thought that he'd been hit by a bus or something.


don't underestimate kobe's forearm


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

man chris paul always creates fouls.. i guess it's the same thing as flopping, and it's kind of annoying, but if you can get away with it.. why not i guess.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Nice Jordan!


----------



## KoBeUrself (Mar 28, 2008)

could peja be colder?


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Kobe's shooting like **** right now.

Lamar is an awesome rebounder though..


----------



## KoBeUrself (Mar 28, 2008)

one of the ugliest quarters of the year


----------



## CPIII (Jan 13, 2009)

peja.. wowow... hornets shooting..wowowo..

chris paul forces you to foul him.. he's legit. stfu.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

We need to play A LOT better to win this game; that was probably the worst quarter we've had all season.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Terrible quarter there, 4 points during a 6 minute stretch. Wow.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

well we're getting warmed up here in the 3rd. Luke Walton is having a great shooting game can you believe that. Our defense has been solid all night.


----------



## CPIII (Jan 13, 2009)

no.. hornets wide open shooting has just been bad.


----------



## KoBeUrself (Mar 28, 2008)

Basel said:


> We need to play A LOT better to win this game; that was probably the worst quarter we've had all season.


welcome to the game basel, you're 2 quarters late


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

Ariza!


----------



## KoBeUrself (Mar 28, 2008)

any guesses to phil's message at half?


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

Time to end this experiment.


----------



## KoBeUrself (Mar 28, 2008)

What is going on with our 2nd unit?


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

Jesus Christ... Here we go again.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

Posey kills us again


----------



## KoBeUrself (Mar 28, 2008)

finally fish


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

****... Threes are killing us.


----------



## CPIII (Jan 13, 2009)

**** you Peja Stojakovic. Carrying your *** again.

Hornets have heart.. damn.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

If we lose blame Phil Jqackson for leaving Kobe and LO on the bench those 1st 5 minutes that **** doesn't work every night. 

Cp3 and West were playing against our subs and hurting us.


----------



## CPIII (Jan 13, 2009)

yeah dude.. phil is c0cky as hell sometimes.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

That was a BULL**** call


----------



## KoBeUrself (Mar 28, 2008)

nice foot on the line there


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

Phil Jackson has coached another terrible 4th quarter against this team once again. 

we're on our heels now trailing by 2.

Our traps against cp3 have been terrible and will get us beat tonight we haven;t hard trapped him all night. He's just low walking us until our defense collapses and he finds an open man.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

if anything, it's the team's effort.. they don't seem to be hustling right now.


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

One of those nights were Kobe is gonna have to be the hero again.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

Posey kills us mother ****ing again


----------



## CPIII (Jan 13, 2009)

****ing poseyyyyyyyyyyyy. wooo.


----------



## Tooeasy (Nov 4, 2003)

clutch shot posey...


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

LOL... Nice pass Posey!


----------



## CPIII (Jan 13, 2009)

where the **** was paul.. lol


----------



## Tooeasy (Nov 4, 2003)

damn how you gonna follow up a great shot by passing it to the gatorade boy in the stand posey?


----------



## CPIII (Jan 13, 2009)

Paul.. being too ****ing fancy.. ****ing stupid.. stupid.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

Wow... What a huge mistake.


----------



## KoBeUrself (Mar 28, 2008)

nice flop


----------



## CPIII (Jan 13, 2009)

youre welcome.


----------



## Tooeasy (Nov 4, 2003)

Paul NEVER costs us a game, he gets a free pass from me, but that was stupid as all get out.


----------



## CPIII (Jan 13, 2009)

I was about to say the same thing..


----------



## KoBeUrself (Mar 28, 2008)

Fish


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

Yeah.... Derek Fisher!


----------



## KoBeUrself (Mar 28, 2008)

OT baby


----------



## CPIII (Jan 13, 2009)

****kkkkkkkkkkk.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

**** Yes... 

Fisher Is Clutch!!!


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

Fisher left wide open for the three...


----------



## CPIII (Jan 13, 2009)

I fear the Kobe..


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

Two huge plays from fish. Getting the charge, and nailing the three for OT.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

Kobe = Money


----------



## CPIII (Jan 13, 2009)

Well that was fun. GG.


----------



## CPIII (Jan 13, 2009)

Paul should have.. could have.. closed the game out. This loss isn't on him. But we should have won it already.

The foul was on Bryant.. this is bull****.. no more from me.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

KoooooooooooooooooooooooBEEEEEEEEE


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

Loved watching Kobe and Posey talking crap while Kobe was shooting free throws. 

Then the next play Kobe comes to the rack strong, gets nailed in the head and still gets the and one.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

was that really a foul on kobe or a flop on paul? probably was a foul, but knowing chris paul...


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

Stu "If we gave this team an IQ test, we may fail". hahaha


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

Darth Bryant said:


> Stu "If we gave this team an IQ test, we may fail". hahaha


oh god... somehow I am glad I am listening to SVG.


----------



## CPIII (Jan 13, 2009)

Where the hell did this whole "Chris Paul flops" idea come along? Is it his fault he can penetrate any defense and force the contact on the lazy *** defenders? He's not huge.. he falls. Kobe pushed him.. then twisted feet, so of course they are BOTH going to spiral out of control.


Ps; posey rushed the shot for no reason..


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

The hornets just wont go away...


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

CPIII said:


> Where the hell did this whole "Chris Paul flops" idea come along?


from his flopping.


----------



## KoBeUrself (Mar 28, 2008)

afobisme said:


> was that really a foul on kobe or a flop on paul? probably was a foul, but knowing chris paul...


from my couch, it appeared as though it was a forearm shiver by kobe and then a scissor kick from paul...those are the details, you decide


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

That win cut off 3 years off of my life...

Time to let out a big sigh...


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

what a tight was a ptiful effort by the Lakers defensively we finally hard trapped cp3late in the ot and forced him to make a quick decision. where we forced West into an uncomfortable shot other wise we played poor defense all night long this quasi zone,leaving guys open for 3. 

Offensively we got in a rut because Kobe and LO were on the bench while cp3 was killing our subs, PJ gotta feel better that our bench was dead tonight. 

I'm getting concerned about Sasha he sucks. 

But Fisher's big 3 and Kobe in ot saved our bacon tonight. 

I was so pissed thinking we were gonna lose.


----------



## KoBeUrself (Mar 28, 2008)

Kobe is POTG, Pau played well too.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Good thing Paul gave away the game with that horrible 3-on-1 fastbreak he blew at the end, that was almost a definite loss. Makes up for the horrid overall D at the end there.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

I'm going to go outside the box and say Walton for POG 

14,8,4 and +25 on 5/7 shooting while on the floor in a game where our bench stunk it up.


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

Cris said:


> I'm going to go outside the box and say Walton for POG
> 
> 14,8,4 and +25 on 5/7 shooting while on the floor in a game where our bench stunk it up.


Lakers 20 and 0 when Walton plays more than 15 minutes. MVP


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

Cap said:


> Good thing Paul gave away the game with that horrible 3-on-1 fastbreak he blew at the end, that was almost a definite loss. Makes up for the horrid overall D at the end there.


it was a bad play yes, but not a stupid one. they were up 3 and had a 3 on 1 fastbreak... which would have put them up by 5 with about 20 seconds to go.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

^ He made the wrong decision by trying to score. He had a 3-on-1, easy pass would have sealed the deal. Paul knew it and admitted it afterwards that it cost them the game.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Well things definitely got more interesting than I would've liked - when Posey hit that 3, I was getting flashbacks of last year's Finals. Luckily, Fish & Kobe saved the day and got us the victory.

For POTG, I think going with Walton, Odom or Kobe is fine. Keep voting for it.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Darth Bryant said:


> Lakers 20 and 0 when Walton plays more than 15 minutes. MVP


Your numbers are wrong on that, but I have to give him credit. He played a good game.

And what is wrong with Sasha? He has been playing very poorly.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

CPIII said:


> Where the hell did this whole "Chris Paul flops" idea come along?


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> Your numbers are wrong on that, but I have to give him credit. He played a good game.
> 
> And what is wrong with Sasha? He has been playing very poorly.


My numbers are wrong? 

http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/los-angeles-lakers/players/luke-walton/tips/09/13/188

18 and 0 with 19+ minutes, 2+ wins if you take it down to 15+ minutes a game. What data can you offer to dispute that? :sarcasm:


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Sasha has been awful pretty much all season.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

man chris paul is such a horrible flopper. from now on im gonna call him FISH paul. fish flops, but not as often or bad as this guy. i think he takes more legit charges than he flops (but i aknowledge he does, and has).


----------



## sylaw (Nov 7, 2002)

I didn't know Chris Paul was such a bad flopper until I saw those videos. He does the same crappy spin flop on all those. At least when Fish flops he draws real contact.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Darth Bryant said:


> My numbers are wrong?
> 
> http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/los-angeles-lakers/players/luke-walton/tips/09/13/188
> 
> 18 and 0 with 19+ minutes, 2+ wins if you take it down to 15+ minutes a game. What data can you offer to dispute that? :sarcasm:


http://www.nba.com/playerfile/luke_walton/game_by_game_stats.html

Feb. 11 @ UTA 
18 minutes, Lakers lost 113-109

Jan 27. vs. CHA
18 minutes, lost 117-110

Dec 19. @ MIA
17 minutes, lost 89-87


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> http://www.nba.com/playerfile/luke_walton/game_by_game_stats.html
> 
> Feb. 11 @ UTA
> 18 minutes, Lakers lost 113-109
> ...



The main reason I was responding was to ask you if those three games at less minutes really matter. When you said the numbers were wrong, without saying by how much, or anything else that might make an opinion on the statement, one would assume that you thought they were completely off base. 

My response was mainly trying to point out that his win/loss with extended minutes have been very positive. 18-0 at 19 plus minutes is a positive thing, rather or not it means anything about Lukes importance is up for debate. The three losing games were at lower minutes, and I made the mistake of saying 15+ minutes forgetting that we recently laid an egg at Utah with Luke starting, and the other two losses against teams we should have won.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Darth Bryant said:


> When you said the numbers were wrong, without saying by how much, or anything else that might make an opinion on the statement, one would assume that you thought they were completely off base.


Saying we are 20-0 when in fact we are 20-3 is off base.



> My response was mainly trying to point out that his win/loss with extended minutes have been very positive. 18-0 at 19 plus minutes is a positive thing, rather or not it means anything about Lukes importance is up for debate.


If you are asking me, I don't think it means anything. We only have 10 losses, so there are plenty of numbers that will skew how valuable a player is. We are 9-1 when Sun Yue plays; how valuable is he? We were 17-1 when Mihm played. Maybe we shouldn't have traded him.




> The three losing games were at lower minutes, and I made the mistake of saying 15+ minutes forgetting that we recently laid an egg at Utah with Luke starting, and the other two losses against teams we should have won.


The losses came when he played a minute or two less. I don't think playing him that extra minute would have made a difference, especially given how poorly he played in those games.

Of course that begs the question: If our record when playing him at least 19 minutes is a sign of his value, why not play him more? If he is the key to our success, why is he only playing 19 minutes in the first place?


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> Of course that begs the question: If our record when playing him at least 19 minutes is a sign of his value, why not play him more? If he is the key to our success, why is he only playing 19 minutes in the first place?


Although it's fair to say that, one could also argue the opposite. If Luke is so worthless, then why doesn't he cost the Lakers more when he gets more minutes? 

Or one could use Ariza as an example. He's playing 23 or so a night, why isn't he getting played 30 plus per night since he's highly valued by fans and coaching staff? 

I'm not the biggest Luke fan, and I'd rather have Ariza start. But I still think fans are much harder on him than he deserves, and when he gets minutes he seems to be fairly productive for the team. He's not killing them like many Luke haters here would like to argue.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Darth Bryant said:


> Although it's fair to say that, one could also argue the opposite. If Luke is so worthless, then why doesn't he cost the Lakers more when he gets more minutes?


He has very good players around him. 



> Or one could use Ariza as an example. He's playing 23 or so a night, why isn't he getting played 30 plus per night since he's highly valued by fans and coaching staff?
> 
> I'm not the biggest Luke fan, and I'd rather have Ariza start. But I still think fans are much harder on him than he deserves, and when he gets minutes he seems to be fairly productive for the team. He's not killing them like many Luke haters here would like to argue.


I don't know why you are turning this into a Luke v Ariza debate. Whether Luke is a good player has nothing to do with Ariza.


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

> Wilt_The_Stilt said:
> 
> 
> > He has very good players around him.
> ...


Think outside the box for a second. You are saying that his minutes and the win/loss ratio means nothing. Interestingly enough, I never really argued the point. All I suggested was that he doesn't hurt the team as much as Luke haters like yourself make it out to be.



> Of course that begs the question: If our record when playing him at least 19 minutes is a sign of his value, why not play him more? If he is the key to our success, why is he only playing 19 minutes in the first place?


First of all, no one is talking key to success. I never said the sun rises and falls with Luke, so stop with the nonsense. However, I have always said the offense runs better when he's on the floor. He is a good role player, and all teams need good role players to be successful. 

The Trevor vs Luke debate wasn't really meant to be a debate at all. You made that statement above about increased minutes for better players, and I asked wouldn't it be true with Trevor as well? Why doesn't he get far more minutes, and Luke get far less if Ariza is that good and Luke is that bad? It's not a question of debating the two, it's a question of rather or not your statement has any real validity. 

So Again I ask you why Ariza isn't getting 30 or more minutes, and Luke getting little to nothing a game if Luke is so bad? The answer is, Phil plays who he likes regardless of who we like it. Because Phil knows more about what his players will give him than you or I do. That's why we don't make millions a year coaching the Lakers and he does. That's not a Trevor vs Luke statement, as I said before I'd rather have Trevor start and get the bulk minutes.

The amount of time played rather increases or not isn't always a sign of value on a Phil Jackson team, unless your Radman. So in case you didn't see what my point was from the start of this Luke topic, I merely said that the Lakers do good when Walton gets more minutes, despite what Luke haters would like to think or say. You can argue surrounding team all you want, but the same argument could be made for virtually any player on the Lakers... We have a deep, incredibly talented roster, and because of that role players and superstars tend to thrive in it.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Darth Bryant said:


> Everyone has good players around them, including Kobe. What is your point?


The point is the other guys on the floor make up for his weaknesses. AC Green started for us during our title run. Didn't mean he had any real value.



> Think outside the box for a second. You are saying that his minutes and the win/loss ratio means nothing. *Interestingly enough, I never really argued the point.* All I suggested was that he doesn't hurt the team as much as Luke haters like yourself make it out to be.


I think you are arguing it right now. You are arguing that it shows his value to the team. It doesn't.



> First of all, no one is talking key to success. *I never said the sun rises and falls with Luke,* so stop with the nonsense.


Neither did I.



> He is a good role player, and all teams need good role players to be successful.


Actually Luke has never won a title so I find it hard to believe that any team needs him to be successful.



> The Trevor vs Luke debate wasn't really meant to be a debate at all. You made that statement above about increased minutes for better players, and I asked wouldn't it be true with Trevor as well? Why doesn't he get far more minutes, and Luke get far less if Ariza is that good and Luke is that bad? It's not a question of debating the two, it's a question of rather or not your statement has any real validity.


You are assuming I think Ariza is a great player. Where did I say he was that good? I didn't. I never said anything about him. Which is why I was wondering how he even got involved in this. 



> So Again I ask you why Ariza isn't getting 30 or more minutes, and Luke getting little to nothing a game if Luke is so bad? The answer is, Phil plays who he likes regardless of who we like it. Because Phil knows more about what his players will give him than you or I do. That's why we don't make millions a year coaching the Lakers and he does. That's not a Trevor vs Luke statement, as I said before I'd rather have Trevor start and get the bulk minutes.


Then why even have a basketball forum? Can't criticize the players because they are better than us. Can't criticize the coaches because they know more than us. Can't criticize the GM's because they have the job and we don't. 



> So in case you didn't see what my point was from the start of this Luke topic, I merely said that the Lakers do good when Walton gets more minutes, despite what Luke haters would like to think or say. *You can argue surrounding team all you want, but the same argument could be made for virtually any player on the Lakers... *


Except that those other players are the talented ones I was refering to. Luke isn't. 

The point is that on a winning team there are always players who aren't very good but still get playing time. The fact that the team still wins is not a sign of the lesser player's value, but of the value of the quality players.



> We have a deep, incredibly talented roster, and because of that role players and superstars tend to thrive in it.


Bad players look better when they play with stars.


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

Wilt_The_Stilt said:


> Actually Luke has never won a title so I find it hard to believe that any team needs him to be successful.


This point is lame. Gasol never won a title.. Do we need him to be successful? 



> You are assuming I think Ariza is a great player. Where did I say he was that good? I didn't. I never said anything about him. Which is why I was wondering how he even got involved in this.


The problem is you have written a lot in this thread but haven't really said anything. So I have to assume I know where you are going point wise or even belief wise when I respond. If you just clearly stated that you think Luke is garbage from the start, we could have taken it from there. 



> *Then why even have a basketball forum? Can't criticize the players because they are better than us. Can't criticize the coaches because they know more than us. Can't criticize the GM's because they have the job and we don't. *
> 
> Except that those other players are the talented ones I was refering to. Luke isn't.



Did Luke say something to hurt your feelings or something along those lines? Did I tell you that you couldn't have an opinion, or that no one should for that matter? No, I didn't. I never said you couldn't debate it, or that you had to think he was even worthy of a roster spot. I merely said I trust Phil Jackson's judgment over yours, because you seem a little to close to the situation for some odd reason. At least Kennethto will come out and blatantly say what he thinks, with you it takes handful of posts either way to make a statement. 

It's no big deal man, it's Luke Walton..

I guess in the end we will have to just agree that we disagree (kind of). 
:cheers:


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Interesting as it has been reading tgose last posts regarding Luke and Trevor, let's get real, here: Luke Walton is a mediocre *role *player. And Trevor is a good *role *player.

Luke is starting because he is more helpfull in the starting 5 than in the second unit. And that's because Walton's deficiencies (lack of defense, erratic shot) are better hidden when he plays with the big boys. 
On the other hand, Trevor seems to be more equiped (sp?) to play with the subs, where he can impact the game with his defense and hustle.

It's not just a matter of sating "if X player is better, why doesn't he start over Y player?"


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Darth Bryant said:


> This point is lame. Gasol never won a title.. Do we need him to be successful?


You categorized Luke as a role player. Gasol is an all-star level player. You usually need those types of players to win.




> The problem is you have written a lot in this thread but haven't really said anything. So I have to assume I know where you are going point wise or even belief wise when I respond.


You have written more than I have in this thread. All I stated initially was that your numbers were wrong. Which they were. I don't see why you couldn't leave it at that.



> If you just clearly stated that you think Luke is garbage from the start, we could have taken it from there.


Like I said, the point was to correct your inaccurate statistic. For some reason you didn't leave it at that.



> Did Luke say something to hurt your feelings or something along those lines? Did I tell you that you couldn't have an opinion, or that no one should for that matter? No, I didn't. I never said you couldn't debate it, or that you had to think he was even worthy of a roster spot. I merely said I trust Phil Jackson's judgment over yours, because you seem a little to close to the situation for some odd reason.


Again, all I did was correct your inaccurate statistic. I don't know why didn't just accept it. Instead you started talking about what you "really meant." So I answered the questions you asked. I don't see how that makes me too close to the situation. 

If anything it shows that you are a little too sensitive about having your incorrect stats called out.



> At least Kennethto will come out and blatantly say what he thinks, with you it takes handful of posts either way to make a statement.


Ha. You are the one who had to explain what you meant when you asked for data that disputed your incorrect numbers. 

My original post meant exactly what it said. Your numbers were wrong. 



> It's no big deal man, it's Luke Walton..


Curious that you would post this after all the time you spent defending him.


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

> Wilt_The_Stilt said:
> 
> 
> > You categorized Luke as a role player. Gasol is an all-star level player. You usually need those types of players to win.
> ...


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> Interesting as it has been reading tgose last posts regarding Luke and Trevor, let's get real, here: Luke Walton is a mediocre *role *player. And Trevor is a good *role *player.
> 
> Luke is starting because he is more helpfull in the starting 5 than in the second unit. And that's because Walton's deficiencies (lack of defense, erratic shot) are better hidden when he plays with the big boys.
> On the other hand, Trevor seems to be more equiped (sp?) to play with the subs, where he can impact the game with his defense and hustle.


Personally, I'd like to see Ariza get closer to 30 minutes a night as well as start, and give Luke the filler time in between. Now that Bynum is down, and we got Odom and Gasol who both are decent at creating for themselves, I don't think Luke really has a role in the starting line up.

Before when Bynum was starting, I liked how active Luke was at feeding Bynum in the post. Toward the end though when Bynum started creating more for himself, Luke became even less useful and I really was thinking maybe it was time to switch the Ariza/Walton role to tighten up our defense at the three. 

However it does seem that Ariza works better off the bench, but in the playoffs having him start might be important when you play teams like Boston, Cleavland, etc.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Darth Bryant said:


> Because you were attempting to make it sound like I was completely out in left field. The difference of three games, with less minutes didn't really make or break the statement I made.


What did I write?

"Your numbers are wrong on that.."

How can that be interpreted as me saying you are completely out in left field?

The numbers you posted were wrong so I corrected them. There was no evil motive behind it.



> In your mind I'm sure the three games is huge, but that's mainly because you dislike Luke Walton, and has little to do with reality.


Wow. I never said any of that. Stop assuming so much.



> I just found the statistic to be interesting. Even after the the three "huge" losses added to it.


Why did you quote the word huge? I never said it. You are putting words in my mouth to help your argument.




> I wouldn't consider what I'm doing defending Luke Walton because of any particular like for him or what he brings to the table. I'd consider it more defending the statement that Luke Walton isn't really as bad as some people like to think he is. Does saying that mean I think he's great? Make or break of the team? Starter caliber player? Point out where I said that, because it doesn't exist.


Fair enough. I never said you were defending Luke for any particular reason. But you were defending him. And I found it curious you would end it that way after all the time spent doing it.



> But you hate him so much, that any compliment about Luke in your eyes is taken to an extreme that is just not really there.


In my original post I complimented him.



> By all means though, continue to read into it if you'd like.


So ironic that you are accusing me of reading into things.


----------

