vcsgrizzfan wrote:
I'll take that as surrender. Nice chatting with you.
honestly...I am speechless that you & abe actually believe that. I know you guys a big Duncan fans...but come on.
If you can come up with an argument why two in a row over a three year stretch is better than 2 out of 3 years "just because", then make it. You can't so you should probably just stfu.
It really would come down to the circumstances of who you beat and who you had to contend with in each of the two titles, whether they were in consecutive years or in three years. The rest is just trumpeting nonsense.
1. Everyone want to dethrone the champ to be the champ
2. hunger and thrive...sustainability
I still can't believe you think 3peat is not impressive...that just blown my mind.
Macrotus wrote:
honestly...I am speechless that you & abe actually believe that. I know you guys a big Duncan fans...but come on.
If you can come up with an argument why two in a row over a three year stretch is better than 2 out of 3 years "just because", then make it. You can't so you should probably just stfu.
It really would come down to the circumstances of who you beat and who you had to contend with in each of the two titles, whether they were in consecutive years or in three years. The rest is just trumpeting nonsense.
1. Everyone want to dethrone the champ to be the champ
2. hunger and thrive...sustainability
I still can't believe you think 3peat is not impressive...that just blown my mind.
Wow. This thread devolved quickly. It's borderline thread-killing silliness being bandied about at this point.
And that's fine. I can play the silliness game. Sometimes, it's fun. But it's tough to have it both ways...
Macrotus wrote:
honestly...I am speechless that you & abe actually believe that. I know you guys a big Duncan fans...but come on.
If you can come up with an argument why two in a row over a three year stretch is better than 2 out of 3 years "just because", then make it. You can't so you should probably just stfu.
It really would come down to the circumstances of who you beat and who you had to contend with in each of the two titles, whether they were in consecutive years or in three years. The rest is just trumpeting nonsense.
1. Everyone want to dethrone the champ to be the champ
2. hunger and thrive...sustainability
I still can't believe you think 3peat is not impressive...that just blown my mind.
I still can't believe you like to make shit up. Where did I say a 3 peat is not impressive? But a 3 peat wouldn't necessarily be more impressive than 3 out of 4 or even 3 out of 5. It really would depend on the individual circumstances in which each team won it's 3 titles, who they beat to get there etc... One isn't inherently better than the other, 'just because'.
Robceltsfan kind of pointed out the hypocrisy of that argument already. Bill Russell was the lead dog on an 8 peat. Shouldn't that then trump everything?? I mean, if a repeat is all that and a bag of chips compared to two out of three, then 8 in a row has to trump everything for all eternity then.
So according to grizz, accomplishing an achievement 100 out of 100 times isn't accomplishing a feat that is greater than 100 out of 125 due to both of them accomplished the achievement 100 times.
I should try convincing my professors that logic and see how far it gets me.
y2ktors wrote:So according to grizz, accomplishing an achievement 100 out of 100 times isn't accomplishing a feat that is greater than 100 out of 125 due to both of them accomplished the achievement 100 times.
I should try convincing my professors that logic and see how far it gets me.
That's an asinine stance to take bro. This isn't that large of a statistical set of data.
Which of these is better?
win-win-loss-win
win-win-win-loss
???
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
y2ktors wrote:So according to grizz, accomplishing an achievement 100 out of 100 times isn't accomplishing a feat that is greater than 100 out of 125 due to both of them accomplished the achievement 100 times.
I should try convincing my professors that logic and see how far it gets me.
Try to think a little. Let's take a 4 year stretch just for the sake of argument. Team A wins the title in years 1 and 4. Team B wins the title in years 2 and 3. They are in different conference and met in the finals 4 straight years. A obviously beat team B in years 1 and 4 and vice versa. They both won 2 out of 4 years. The two out of two is completely contrived.
Neither is inherently better than the other. You could make the case that A is actually far more impressive if B had an easy conference while A had a very difficult conference, and of course vice versa.
You are pretending the denominator has to be different for both teams. That's dumb.
vcsgrizzfan wrote:
If you can come up with an argument why two in a row over a three year stretch is better than 2 out of 3 years "just because", then make it. You can't so you should probably just stfu.
It really would come down to the circumstances of who you beat and who you had to contend with in each of the two titles, whether they were in consecutive years or in three years. The rest is just trumpeting nonsense.
1. Everyone want to dethrone the champ to be the champ
2. hunger and thrive...sustainability
I still can't believe you think 3peat is not impressive...that just blown my mind.
I still can't believe you like to make shit up. Where did I say a 3 peat is not impressive? But a 3 peat wouldn't necessarily be more impressive than 3 out of 4 or even 3 out of 5. It really would depend on the individual circumstances in which each team won it's 3 titles, who they beat to get there etc... One isn't inherently better than the other, 'just because'.
Robceltsfan kind of pointed out the hypocrisy of that argument already. Bill Russell was the lead dog on an 8 peat. Shouldn't that then trump everything?? I mean, if a repeat is all that and a bag of chips compared to two out of three, then 8 in a row has to trump everything for all eternity then.
consecutive wins is more impressive then scattered wins...period. How many time in sports have you heard this X team is on a roll...with 10 consecutive wins? Remember when the Lakers and Heats went on that long winning streaks?...you telling me you aren't impress..then some scattered wins?
Russell is in different era...otherwise 8 trumped 6 even if it's not consecutive.
Macrotus wrote:
1. Everyone want to dethrone the champ to be the champ
2. hunger and thrive...sustainability
I still can't believe you think 3peat is not impressive...that just blown my mind.
I still can't believe you like to make shit up. Where did I say a 3 peat is not impressive? But a 3 peat wouldn't necessarily be more impressive than 3 out of 4 or even 3 out of 5. It really would depend on the individual circumstances in which each team won it's 3 titles, who they beat to get there etc... One isn't inherently better than the other, 'just because'.
Robceltsfan kind of pointed out the hypocrisy of that argument already. Bill Russell was the lead dog on an 8 peat. Shouldn't that then trump everything?? I mean, if a repeat is all that and a bag of chips compared to two out of three, then 8 in a row has to trump everything for all eternity then.
consecutive wins is more impressive then scattered wins...period. How many time in sports have you heard this X team is on a roll...with 10 consecutive wins? Remember when the Lakers and Heats went on that long winning streaks?...you telling me you aren't impress..then some scattered wins?
Russell is in different era...otherwise 8 trumped 6 even if it's not consecutive.
Don't be intellectually lazy. Make an argument and not an assertion. I know you aren't all that bright, but at least try.
Macrotus wrote:
1. Everyone want to dethrone the champ to be the champ
2. hunger and thrive...sustainability
I still can't believe you think 3peat is not impressive...that just blown my mind.
I still can't believe you like to make shit up. Where did I say a 3 peat is not impressive? But a 3 peat wouldn't necessarily be more impressive than 3 out of 4 or even 3 out of 5. It really would depend on the individual circumstances in which each team won it's 3 titles, who they beat to get there etc... One isn't inherently better than the other, 'just because'.
Robceltsfan kind of pointed out the hypocrisy of that argument already. Bill Russell was the lead dog on an 8 peat. Shouldn't that then trump everything?? I mean, if a repeat is all that and a bag of chips compared to two out of three, then 8 in a row has to trump everything for all eternity then.
consecutive wins is more impressive then scattered wins...period. How many time in sports have you heard this X team is on a roll...with 10 consecutive wins? Remember when the Lakers and Heats went on that long winning streaks?...you telling me you aren't impress..then some scattered wins?
Russell is in different era...otherwise 8 trumped 6 even if it's not consecutive.
In the Bulls 72 win season they didn't have a win streak longer than 18 games. They "scattered" their 72 wins.
I'm unimpressed by that.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
y2ktors wrote:So according to grizz, accomplishing an achievement 100 out of 100 times isn't accomplishing a feat that is greater than 100 out of 125 due to both of them accomplished the achievement 100 times.
I should try convincing my professors that logic and see how far it gets me.
That's an asinine stance to take bro. This isn't that large of a statistical set of data.
Which of these is better?
win-win-loss-win
win-win-win-loss
???
That's the wrong example, Robceltsfan. You're using 3 of 4 vs 3 of 4. Obviously that's equal.
Winning back to back is W-W, which is greater than W-L-W.
y2ktors wrote:So according to grizz, accomplishing an achievement 100 out of 100 times isn't accomplishing a feat that is greater than 100 out of 125 due to both of them accomplished the achievement 100 times.
I should try convincing my professors that logic and see how far it gets me.
That's an asinine stance to take bro. This isn't that large of a statistical set of data.
Which of these is better?
win-win-loss-win
win-win-win-loss
???
That's the wrong example, Robceltsfan. You're using 3 of 4 vs 3 of 4. Obviously that's equal.
Winning back to back is W-W, which is greater than W-L-W.
Why are you comparing 2 against 3? You're trolling at this point. No other explanation.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
vcsgrizzfan wrote:
I still can't believe you like to make shit up. Where did I say a 3 peat is not impressive? But a 3 peat wouldn't necessarily be more impressive than 3 out of 4 or even 3 out of 5. It really would depend on the individual circumstances in which each team won it's 3 titles, who they beat to get there etc... One isn't inherently better than the other, 'just because'.
Robceltsfan kind of pointed out the hypocrisy of that argument already. Bill Russell was the lead dog on an 8 peat. Shouldn't that then trump everything?? I mean, if a repeat is all that and a bag of chips compared to two out of three, then 8 in a row has to trump everything for all eternity then.
consecutive wins is more impressive then scattered wins...period. How many time in sports have you heard this X team is on a roll...with 10 consecutive wins? Remember when the Lakers and Heats went on that long winning streaks?...you telling me you aren't impress..then some scattered wins?
Russell is in different era...otherwise 8 trumped 6 even if it's not consecutive.
Don't be intellectually lazy. Make an argument and not an assertion. I know you aren't all that bright, but at least try.
you lack logic...seriously. able to sustain a winning pace is not an easy feast.
y2ktors wrote:So according to grizz, accomplishing an achievement 100 out of 100 times isn't accomplishing a feat that is greater than 100 out of 125 due to both of them accomplished the achievement 100 times.
I should try convincing my professors that logic and see how far it gets me.
That's an asinine stance to take bro. This isn't that large of a statistical set of data.
Which of these is better?
win-win-loss-win
win-win-win-loss
???
That's the wrong example, Robceltsfan. You're using 3 of 4 vs 3 of 4. Obviously that's equal.
Winning back to back is W-W, which is greater than W-L-W.
By definition, the first team either went L-W-W or W-W-L. What the fuck is so hard to understand?
