SloppyJaloppy's Comments

Posted Wednesday March 20, 2013, About: Which Rocky movie was the most realistic?
Any consideration that Rocky was based on a real life situation (Chuck Wepner was rocky and Apollo was Ali) or that Rocky 6 is based loosely on George Foreman accomplishing a similar feat in real life (Foreman won the heavyweight title at, I think 49 years old)?
Posted Thursday July 19, 2012, About: Kobe's 81 vs. Wilt's 100
I'm surprised there's not more discussion of how abnormal it was for Wilt to make the majority of his free throws that game. I'm going off memory instead of looking it up, but I believe he was 28 out of 32 from the foul line, even though he was a bad free throw shooter.
Posted Thursday July 19, 2012, About: Kobe's 81 vs. Wilt's 100
If you criticize Wilt for shooting closer to the basket, are you suggesting he shouldn't have shot closer to the basket? It's his responsibility to get the best shot possible for his team every time. Generally, the closer to the basket, the higher percentage shot it is. Wilt did what he was supposed to do. It's the defense's responsibility to stop him and since they could stop him less than the Raptors were able to stop Kobe from getting the best shot possible for his team, I have to say Wilt's is more impressive.
Posted Tuesday July 10, 2012, About: USA Basketball... who should get the last three spots?
I think Team USA actually benefits from being thin in the post. Chandler will start and Love will be the backup center. Griffin may play once in awhile, but he will be an extra piece. By having limited PF's, it makes it easy to move Lebron and Carmelo into the PF spot where they are actually both more effective, and it gives Team USA a chance to exploit their biggest advantage. You can't play Carmelo, Lebron, Durant, and Kobe all at the same time and still have a traditional PG on the floor. Being thin at PF requires you to play one of those two at PF and it makes USA a lot better in the process.
Is that Kurt Warner Idaho comment a jab at Iowa? Or a legit mistake? I'm from Iowa, I can see how someone might want to take a jab, but I think its a legit mistake.
Posted Thursday June 21, 2012, About: All-time NBA Starting 5
I've read a lot of basketball writing that suggests Wilt Chamberlain was a lesser player than he could have been because he was more focused on stats than winning games. That he would stop playing defense if he got in foul trouble, that he would block shots out of bounds instead of controlling the ball and keeping possession of it, that he was so selfish about stats that he would take his teammates out of the game and then when they played better competetion they would lose because of it, and that many of the great players from that era thought Bill Russell was better than Wilt.

I could be wrong on this, but I think I remember that the players used to vote for the MVP award instead of the media and the players picked Bill Russell more times instead of Wilt Chamberlain. Could anyone else verify that last part?
Posted Wednesday June 20, 2012, About: Is Kevin Durant better suited with a pass first PG?
The biggest thing the Thunder could do to improve would be to get something better in place of Kendrick Perkins. This guy offers almost nothing. If he got paid like Nazr Mohammad it wouldn't matter, but he makes big money, doesn't contribute on offense, is WAY OVERRATED on defense, and it looks like he's not trying very hard on defense when he gallops back instead of sprinting. Where are the rebounds this guy is suppposed to produce? Wasn't he supposed to be the missing piece instead of the big waste?
Posted Wednesday June 20, 2012, About: Is Kevin Durant better suited with a pass first PG?
I think people using those kind of stats are just looking at numbers instead of the momentum of the game. Westbrook took his team out of the offense in Game 2 and there were legit reasons for criticism. Then compare to last night when Durant couldn't seem to get open and Westbrook pretty much carried the team at times. The momentum and what the team needed was way different and they did need Westbrook to carry them last night. Durant is very good, but he allows himself to be taken out of the game at times.

What I wish is that Westbrook would eliminate the fast-break pull-up jump shot when he has numbers and/or a teammate who is on a hot streak.

I don't mind if he shoots more shots as long as he's properly reading what his team needs from him or if they should be getting the ball more.
Posted Wednesday June 20, 2012, About: Is Kevin Durant better suited with a pass first PG?
signs of making it work long term? Are you kidding? Does improving each year, advancing to the conference finals last year, advancing to the NBA Finals this year, and being very close in each game not count as "signs of making it work"

You must be f'n crazy
Posted Wednesday June 20, 2012, About: All-time NBA Starting 5
I would put Hakeem at PF. He played there long enough and his skills match that position well enough to justify it. I think Olajuwon could defend as well as Duncan and had a little more on offense. I couldn't come up with any other changes.
I don't really get Reggie Miller's inclusion in this list. It doesn't seem like it fits to me.
Posted Monday June 18, 2012, About: What should the Thunder do this offseason?
I hope the Thunder hold a championship parade during the off-season
Cmon CCC, you CANNOT be this stupid. Please stop pretending. You know they list total career numbers and they also list stats per season. If you want to talk about stats per season, then just talk about those stats. If you want to talk about career stats, then you can list those. You can use both if you want to be accurate. What you cannot do while maintaining any credibility is pretend that you don't know the difference and aren't able to tell the difference. It would also be a good idea to acknowledge that someone playing at an elite level for a longer period of time than the person he's compared to is an important part of the evaluation. It's NOT THE ONLY PART, but it is an important part. They differnece in number of seasons is only 2. The major difference is that Duncan declined a long time ago and Karl Malone only had 2 bad seasons (compared to HOF seasons).

I knew from your previous comments that you were stupid, but I didn't think it was this bad. If I knew from the beginning you wouldn't comprehend it, I would have just not corrected your original, stupid comments. I think you meant the moronic comments earlier, but you must be "playing dumb" at this point.
Posted Friday June 15, 2012, About: "Was the fix in for the lottery?" Legitimate question?
well said. I share the same thought. It would have been a "conspiracy" with any of these teams.
Posted Friday June 15, 2012, About: "Was the fix in for the lottery?" Legitimate question?
why wouldn't he back up his trash talk? because he's a sissified punk
Posted Friday June 15, 2012, About: "Was the fix in for the lottery?" Legitimate question?
Don't forget his lack of credibility and emphasis on pretending he's a tough guy in form of trash talking people that he makes a living off of and would not have a career without, but would cower from if they ever confronted him about what he said.

Chris Everett attack and all is great TV, but its not real sports journalism to me.

Jim Rome is a dooouuuucheee
It's one career vs another career. I'm sorry if you just realized your argument is terrible and the numbers don't back you up. The case for Duncan being better is based on rings and clutchness, not statistics. I suppose it would be a waste of your time since you are wrong.
I didn't fail to recognize anything. Malone's longevity helps his case, not hurts it. He was able to play at an exceptionally high level much longer than Duncan. They both played great, but Malone did it over a longer period of time. And when you try to justify worse statistics with whatever reasoning you decide, that doesn't change that he didn't produce as much and statistics show that. Each person has to decide how much they value the discrepency in statistical evidence and compare it to their understanding of the context in which those statistics were achieved. "If duncan were his team's primary offensive weapon then things would be diff......" translates to if Duncan were better than he was he would have played better than he did. Perhaps if Malone wasn't good enough offensively to be his team's primary offensive option like Duncan wasn't good enough to be, then Malone's stats would be as bad as Duncan's. I don't think Popovich had a conspiracy to hold Duncan down. I think Pop just used his skills the way it best helped the team. But he didn't make Duncan miss the shots he did or not get the rebounds he did. You can say "it's because of health concerns".... but that would lead you back to Malone's longevity contributing to him being better.

I'm usually the first one to say stats without context result in a confused and incorrect evaluation of what really happened and what was important. I could easily make the case for Duncan you are making and do it better. I'm not even saying definately that Malone is better. I'm just pointing out that there is a very good argument for him being better. Statements like Malone can't carry Duncan's jock are completely stupid, especially when you realize you are comparing the 1st and 2nd best at the position and the difference is very, very close.

If you don't include rings (extension of clutch performance) then you can make a good case that Malone was better.
This is simply untrue. You referenced Jordan's 63 pt game a few comments ago and EVERYBODY remembers the performance, and he lost. If someone evaluates Kobe's rings, many say "but he wasn't the true leader for those first 3 rings" and they are judging both his performance AND the outcome. When people judge Gary Payton and Jason Kidd's credentials against John Stockton and Steve Nash's and they consider the championships those first two guys won, don't you think a reasonable person would point out that each of them played supporting roles and weren't hugely consequential to winning the titles? That should cause the evaluator to keep the value of that title in perspective when deciding who is better.

These are 3 different examples, and there are lots and lots of them, of how performance and winning are differentiated.
Duncan 1st team all defense 8 times. Malone 1st team all defense only 3 times.

Duncan was 1st team all nba 8 times. Malone was 1st team all nba 11 times.

Thru 2011-2012 Duncan scored 22,558 pts Karl Malone scored 36,928 pts

Duncan's total rebounds 12533 Malone's total rebounds 14968
Isn't Malone's inclusion on the 1st Team All NBA so many times a clear sign that he was one of the best 2 forwards in the league 3 times more than Duncan? Isn't 1st Team All NBA a more important way to measure overall quality of play since its not just offense or defense, but a combination of both? Malone is 2nd all time in scoring, but you don't think he's significantly better on offense? Even with his 1st and last year being nowhere near as good as the rest of the seasons he played, Malone averaged 25ppg. Duncan played all 4 years of college and came into the NBA ready to contribute immediately and he has only averaged 20.3ppg.

Although not the defender that Tim Duncan was, Malone was good enough defender to be considered for 1st Team All NBA 11 times and 3 times more than Duncan.

If you don't factor in rings (extension of clutchnesss) then what do you have left to say Duncan is better overall? The difference on offense appears glaring to me. Even if you think Duncan is better, you'd have to admit there's a strong case for Malone.
Posted Wednesday June 13, 2012, About: When your heroes dropped the ball..
Last Page

Truth & Rumors


  1. 1
    Clippers, Warriors exchange barbs
  2. 2
    Tuukka Rask takes blame for Bruins' Game 1 loss
  3. 3
    Smush Parker allegedly punches high schooler
  4. 4
    Time to penalize NHL's perennial losers?
  5. 5
    Quarterback freefalling down draft boards

SI Photos