Why trade for him if you're not going to play him?!

cson: Would you please like to justify the "in Rudy we Trust argument?" It's a COMPLETE AND UNMITIGATED logical fallacy to claim that an argument is affected by its proponent. The veracity of a syllogism is irrelevant to speaker. Do you really want to dispute this?

Now, on points of ambiguity... it's true that expert opinion is useful... but it's not a mitigating factor when controverting reasoned analysis. Please desist from doing this.

Now on to your actual arguments...

a. They're just rookies- yes, and I openly acknowledge this. Dan Langhi has shown a spark of potential, Collier has not.

b. Rudy's history- Rudy has found gems in the 2nd round... he's also acquired some major busts. Mirsad Turkcan ring a bell? What about Roderick Rhodes? The stiffs at center?

Rudy, and CD, overall, have done better than average on the draft boards. This does not, however, preclude their being wrong in any individual case. Past successes should *not* determine how we evaluate current situations.

Once again, this is a logical fallacy.

"In Rudy we trust..." until we manage to think for ourselves.

------------------
Shandon Anderson rocks.
The lottery sucks. Playoffs 2001.


[This message has been edited by haven (edited October 23, 2000).]

 

well...from now on i am certainly distrusting Rudy every draft that is. He has made some really bad, bad decisions. drew, turkcan, and collier. next summer i am not going to get excited, im not going to let myself look forward to draft night. because thats what i did last summer and i got horribly burned. I distrust Rudy on draft night, im cool with him any other day of the year.

------------------
"Man, it's cool. I'm going to be president. That's Wicked." -George W. Bush, SNL

 

Haven, you pompous ass. What are you trying to do...win an argument by condescension? This is a basketball forum, not some tight-ass debate team rehearsal. How about this for a simple, straight-forward opinion: Most draft picks are not hugely successful. All teams pass on picks that become hugely successful. It typically takes at least a couple of years to see if a pick will be successful. Rudy has hit big on picks in the past. More so than most other teams. When a pick doesn't work out, that is the norm. Based on his record, I choose Rudy and the Rockets organization to do the drafting over kidrock8, lil francis, haven, etc.

------------------

 

Well put Moe. I was just trying to put into words exactly what you just said. If you expect every second and first round draft pick to turn out as well as Mobley, then you will be severely dissappointed in the performance of all teams drafts. The hard cold facts are that more often than not, late first rounders and second rounders are not going to be highly successful. I think Rudy has spoiled us by making picks like Mobley and KT.

------------------
"Nothing is certain but the unforseen."
Some Dude

 

He has made mistakes, but I don't think you can call Drew or Turscan, definitely not Collier or Langhi, mistakes yet. 3 out of those 4 picks got us first round draft picks. Let's see what he does with those first.

------------------
When you make an assumption, you make an ass out of yourself and umption.

visit www.swirve.com

 

Rocketman: Good points, and I acknowledge them. All I mean is that his judgement isn't infallible, he can err in analyzing a player's talents. I think, then, that we have a right to evaluate his decisions. Nobody's perfect.

Please note that I am *not* saying Rudy is a bad evaluator of talent... just an imperfect one.

------------------
Shandon Anderson rocks.
The lottery sucks. Playoffs 2001.

 

Boy, Haven, for someone who protrays themself as so very logical, you sure dodge and weave and ignore statements that don't fall into your proclamations. Pompous and condescending? How about "The veracity of a syllogism is irrelevant to speaker." I've not noticed anyone else using that vocabulary. Then there was "It's a COMPLETE AND UNMITIGATED logical fallacy to claim that an argument is affected by its proponent." Brainy. What a zinger. Actually, I agree with the statement. In fact, I'm going to apply it to you. Just because YOU said that to trust Rudy is an logical fallacy doesn't make it so.

How about this non sequitar: "By your logic, the Golden State Warriors fans have nothing to complain about either. After all, their GM's have known more about basketball than them." If you read my post, I said "Based on his record, I choose Rudy..." Is Golden State's record as good as Rudy's? Even close?


Your statement: "Your "common sense" approach *sounds* nice, but it fails. You can insult me all you want, but all you've done is prove that you can't make your case." Actually, I think I made my case pretty well. Go back to your logical fallacy.

I never said Rudy was infallable. Based on his record and the fact that the draft is a crap shoot for the most part, why would I condemn this draft when we won't know how good it is for a few years anyway?

According to you, that makes me illogical.

------------------

 

Everyone is b****ing too much.

So what if the Rockets didn't get a big time rookie in the draft? They didn't have much to work with to get one.

I really do not see why there is all this quarrelling over the 11th and 12th players on the roster. The 11th and 12th spots should be reserved for projects. Especially for a young team like the Rockets.

------------------
There are 3 kinds of lies:

lies, lies, and heypeeisms.

-DrofDunkingDonuts

 

The 11th and 12th spots should be reserved for prospects? I thought that was what the IR was for.

------------------

 

"Boy, Haven, for someone who protrays themself as so very logical, you sure dodge and weave and ignore statements that don't fall into your proclamations."

Let's examine this...
Pompous and condescending? How about "The veracity of a syllogism is irrelevant to speaker." I've not noticed anyone else using that vocabulary. Then
there was "It's a COMPLETE AND UNMITIGATED logical fallacy to claim that an argument is affected by its proponent." Brainy. What a zinger. Actually, I
agree with the statement. In fact, I'm going to apply it to you. Just because YOU said that to trust Rudy is an logical fallacy doesn't make it so.

So what's condescending about introducing new vocabulary into a conversation if it's relevant? Nothing, I would hope.

Trusting Rudy is not a logical fallacy. It is a logical fallacy to make the claim: Despite your arguments, what Rudy says is true, without addressing the claims on the merits. My argument stands independent of my status. The test of a claim must be determined by examining the structure/veracity. There is no hypocrisy here, especially at the point where you accept objectivism.

"How about this non sequitar: "By your logic, the Golden State Warriors fans have nothing to complain about either. After all, their GM's have known more
about basketball than them." If you read my post, I said "Based on his record, I choose Rudy..." Is Golden State's record as good as Rudy's? Even close?"

The GS Warriors argument is logical. Look, anybody in a GM position in the NBA is nearly certain to know more about basketball than you or I. This is going to hold true even for the worst teams. However, simply because they "know more" doesn't mean they haven't made some really dumb decisions. Sheer knowledge should be irrelevant when addressing an argument on its merits. No contradiction. I was merely demonstrating the extreme consequence of the mindset you seem to be advocating.


"Your statement: "Your "common sense" approach *sounds* nice, but it fails. You can insult me all you want, but all you've done is prove that you can't
make your case." Actually, I think I made my case pretty well. Go back to your logical fallacy."

I didn't commit a logical fallacy. I've established this, further, I responded to your "common sense" approach in a previous post. Past successes don't explain the flaws in current analysis, they merely justify the person's overall success, which I have not disputed.

"I never said Rudy was infallable. Based on his record and the fact that the draft is a crap shoot for the most part, why would I condemn this draft when we
won't know how good it is for a few years anyway?"

You have a pretty good point here. It's *impossible* to know for certain what the outcome will be. However, I don't see any harm in arguing about what *should* have been done. I agree that the draft involves a great deal of chance, that doesn't mean that there isn't a logical basis for action. I'd argue that the potential gain in Collier wasn't worth the pick we expended. I could be wrong. It's all about risk assessment.

"According to you, that makes me illogical."

No, the point at which I'm arguing one is illogical is the point at which one fundamentally links the veracity of a statement to the proponent.

Moe: you're good to argue with



------------------
Shandon Anderson rocks.
The lottery sucks. Playoffs 2001.

 

I thought this the day of the draft and I think this today--the Collier deal sucked, and we had a terrible draft. We ended up reaching for a guy who should have been a late first while giving up the best pick we earned in years. Instead of getting Collier, we could have gotten the #2 center in the draft, or Etan Thomas or Moiso--all guys I think have far more potential, even if they sit on their rears for a couple of years. And I don't buy the thing "we'll we couldn't renege on the deal with the Bucs thing" getting us off the hook, we never should have made such a deal in the first place!! We also could have gotten the Greek fellow (#3 center) with either draft pick if I remember--and I think he got out of his contract. As for the Milwaukee pick, the Bucs have a very good chance to finish in the top 4 in the east, surely no lower than 5 or 6. This pick will be a long shot at best.

So our draft sucked, but maybe Langhi can make it respectable in the end or we can pull some Cassell/Mobley magic with the Milwaukee pick. Still despite the bad draft, Carroll and Rudy had a great offseason!!! Resigning Mobley and getting Mo were far more important than playing our draft well. Think about it this way, Mo is near rookie age himself and is as safe or safer a bet than anyone outside the top 7 pick in last years draft. We got him while giving up zero. Getting two early 2nd rounders for Drew isn't a bad thing either.

So overall, our offseason was terrific, despite my firm belief that someone slipped us a Mickey on draft day.



[This message has been edited by Desert Scar (edited October 24, 2000).]

 

Moe: If that's how you want to be a "fan," fine... but I think that's closer to cheerleading. I fail to see what's wrong with trying to understand the reasoning behind certain decisions.

Pompous? hmm... why don't we resort to name calling? That's a great way of winning an argument. Congratulations.

By your logic, the Golden State Warriors fans have nothing to complain about either. After all, their GM's have known more about basketball than them.

This is *absurd*. People, no matter how much knowledge they possess, make mistakes. There's nothing wrong with calling them on it.

Your "common sense" approach *sounds* nice, but it fails. You can insult me all you want, but all you've done is prove that you can't make your case.

Does it take time to see sometimes? yes. Is it necessary to completely suspend judgement in the meantime? No.

Does Rudy have a history of effectivel drafting people? It's better than most. Did he draft Mirsad Turkcan? yes. Is he fallible? yes. Is he going to be right about basketball more than I am? Yes. Does that effect any individual argument? No.

Oh, and incidentally, how is it condescending to point out that someone has committed a logical fallacy?

------------------
Shandon Anderson rocks.
The lottery sucks. Playoffs 2001.


[This message has been edited by haven (edited October 24, 2000).]

 

Seems like the guys are cursed who are proclaimed "for the future". Seems like they get traded "for the sake of them getting more playing time somewhere else".

------------------