Just when I thought you couldn't make a worse analogy.

This is the most ridiculous comment ever and has absolutely zero to do with my points or posts. Keep trying though, you might make a correct point sooner or later on the basis of luck.

You are right, Lebron James is only 23, and only played 4 seasons in the league. I mean he could fall off or get injured. Even thinking that he would be better than Dirk at age 29 who has played 10 years in the league and has already PROVEN he can put up great stats at 29 is crazy talk.

does anyone else never understand ePeen's logic? this is about the 5th time for me. maybe i'm just ******ed

I think that there is a fundamental problem in this argument. We don't apply the same principle of time to talent as we do to injuries.

Just a huge lol at the last few pages.

But Lebron COULD get hurt that's the point, he hasn't proven longevity. Dirk already PROVEN he could stay healthy.

Exactly. Dude I'm on your side on this one. Just because a player stayed healthy or got hurt IRL doesn't mean he will in this one. But so far throughout this thing we've used the assumption that players are going to be mostly as good as they were IRL at any given age.

No one is arguing Dirk > Lebron. Stop.

franchise, stop being so condescending. his point isn't that far off valid. just involves some lateral thinking.

But we have nothing to judge our criteria on but the players actual career, so yes we use that as a basis for judging durability.

It isn't perfect, but it is better than just pretending like durability and longevity don't exist.

ok sounds good

Reading these last few pages is making my head hurt.

When he stops making ridiculous analogies to twist what I'm saying than I'll stop being condescending.

If you can't see the difference in the JJ/DS argument and whatever the **** this Dirk/LBJ stuff is than I don't know what to say.

ePeen,

You make good points and bad points. Unfortunately you choose to scream from the rooftops and never back down on any point regardless of how flawed your logic (if its flawed, it can be perfectly fine as well) is so the good points are getting lost within all the bad points and the screaming noise.

Calm down and make clear concise points and you may have more success.

FWIW I agree with you on the injuries point but dont understand why you're arguing, noone is saying JJ isnt durable. We have evidence he is and theyre agreeing. In a mutually exclusive point people are saying Detlef Schrempf had a ridiculously long and productive career and that makes him a great player. What exactly are you arguing?

On the Petrovic point, I sorta agreed with you when you were comparing him to guys who were picked, say 20-30 picks before him. Then you say hes pretty much Ray Allen and Reggie Miller level (admittedly you semi backtracked) and you lost me.

Edit: Just thought Id add, you're "stats are BS" statements probably arent winning over any fans either. Yeah theres more than stats, but that doesnt mean they have no worth. They have worth and so do non stats arguements.

ok, this im buying.

+10000000000

He is arguing that because JJ was more durable from 22-26 he is more likely to have the long and productive career that DS has already proven he is capable of. Basically being durable from 22-26 is a better sign that a player will be durable from 30-35 than a player being durable from 30-35.

I'm arguing that JJ in my opinion has a less chance to get hurt than Shrempf does in our make believe league, although both have a low injury risk.

I don't think there is a huge difference between Petrovic and Ray Allen/Reggie Miller, I think both Allen/Miller are better players, but I don't think it's a huge gap at all.

k argument settled. ice cream anyone?

yes please

I had so much ice cream last night when I watched Jaws.

I agree with this, infact this is the point i'm trying to make. You will see me using stats in a bunch of my arguments too, I just realize they aren't everything, and a lot of times I feel like people on this board feel like stats ARE everything.

people can evaluate things however they want, but if i see a guy play 10+ years and never missed more than 10 games a season, and had a few "82s" scattered in there, i'm assuming he's not injury prone. likewise, if he plays a shorter career than that, and has missed ~40 more than once in a season, i'm assuming he's very injury prone. people in the middle i decide based on the type of injury.

cool. make sure you factor that into your voting!

The whole basis of my argument is to give credit to Detlef for his longevity. By doing so I am not taking value away from JJ. But by saying JJ should be given the same longevity as Detlef is taking away the +points for DS's longevity. I don't think its a crazy point, and its not meant to take away from JJ's value, just to add to DS's.

I'm done arguing about it though now, I feel like my point has been made multiple times.

Ok Im not going to agree with you there but its such a negligible point its unreal.

Schrempf is clearly durable and had some great longetivity. Joe Johnson is clearly durable, we have no evidence as to whether he can maintain his stats unusually long such as Schrempf did but its certainly possible.

Both are clearly durable players.