jdw

a1wrestling was 13-15 years ago I came across that specific thread a while back... don't know if I was a printout in a box or if I had a copy on my hard disk. But it was morbidly entertaining to re-read. It actually was a thread that split into two parts, and I want to say the other half was Misawa & Kobashi vs Kawada & Taue. I think that half was more Bambi vs. Godzilla over and over and over again. The Sano half... some fun riffs.

Baba was 35 in 1973. How many guys in their mid-30s in the mid-70s were adding more shit to what they did? Terry Funk did, like adding the moonsault when he was an old coot. But Terry was also nuts. Contrast it with Bock, who was four years older than Baba. Nick had what he did, did it very well, and worked on doing it better. But he didn't really feel the need to add a ton of stuff. Dory was younger than both, and pretty much did what he did. I'm thinking about Brisco in his last run with the WWF, or even in the series with Steamer & Youngblood in 1983... pretty much what you've seen of Brisco before. "Hard" really isn't the right word. It's an awareness that the business, and even his own company, was evolving. He went with it.

Cuban screwed Cuban.

We've talked for years (seems like at least a decade) on how interesting a Sano comp would be given his wide and varied "wandering master" career was.

This. The think with Andre is that he was smart in knowing his character as he evolved from young Monster into Andre. He wasn't as narrow of a character as say Kamala, which is credit to Andre for giving himself some depth and breath. But... Baba's character in his prime was as much straight ace champion "wrestler" like most other aces than Big Huge Giant Baba. He could and would work big man stuff, but when you watch him go 60 with The Destroyer... he's working largely as a straight top champion babyface right down to the technical stuff. As the working style evolved, Baba seemed to keep trying to add stuff that fit into being a "wrestler" in that era. Dude added a DDT because wrestlers in his promotion did moves. If you count up the moves he did in 1969 with the Destroyer (or other similar late 60s / early 70s stuff on tape), than chart what he added after that, it's pretty amazing how he evolved as the sport got more spotty / higher tech. He was freaking Baba, a major star and didn't have to do it. But he was smart. Baba is basically The Best Akira Taue Ever. Considering Taue was pretty choice at his peak, and plenty of people like him before and after that peak, that's not a low end compliment of Baba.

Exactly. As an analogy, no one spends this much time on the greatness / non-greatness of Cowens, Ewing, Robinson, or Reed. Even at the level of Moses or Hakeem, people don't spend this much time. Wilt and Shaq? People, both pro and con, work their asses off trying to figure out where they rank. Or in a wrestling example: Shawn. Lots of us think Shawn was overrated, but he also was important enough that both sides spent a thousands of words walking through it.

The book is equally full of funny shit as well. The "face turn that never happened" (a/k/a Stone Cold Superstar) and it causing Billy to become a complete addict was perhaps the funniest one.

US: August 28, 1986 JCP @ Great Western Forum, Inglewood, CA Hector Guerrero pinned the Barbarian Jimmy Valiant defeated Shaska Whatley in a streetfight Wahoo McDaniel pinned National Heavyweight Champion Tully Blanchard to win the title Dick Murdoch fought NWA TV Champion Arn Anderson to a 20-minute time-limit draw The Road Warriors defeated Ivan Koloff & Krusher Kruschev in a double Russian chain match Magnum TA fought NWA US Champion Nikita Koloff to a no contest NWA Tag Team Champions Ricky Morton & Robert Gibson defeated Bobby Eaton & Dennis Condrey NWA World Champion Ric Flair defeated Dusty Rhodes via disqualification Japan: March 26, 1995 AJW Wrestling Queendom III @ Yokohama Arena Rie Tamada pinned Kumiko Maekawa (10:37). Chaparita Asari pinned Candy Okutsu (15:33) to win the AJW Junior Title. Noriko Tsunada and Kaoru Ito battled to a draw (5 rounds) in a "shootboxing" match. Jaguar Yokota & Lady Apache beat Mariko Yoshida & Felina (17:58) in a "lucha libre rules" match. UWA Tag Champs Etsuko Mita & Mima Shimoda beat Tomoko Watanabe & Suzuka Minami (19:01) Sakie Hasegawa pinned Bison Kimura (10:05). Toshiyo Yamada beat Takako Inoue and Reggie Bennett (20:43) in a "triangle" match to win the vacant All-Pacific Title. Yumiko Hotta KO Lioness Asuka (22:53) in an "ultimate fight" match. WWF Women's Champ Bull Nakano pinned Kyoko Inoue (17:07). Manami Toyota pinned Aja Kong (23:21) to win the WWWA Title. Really cool cards... really lucky in that sense. I'd have to sift through WONs to figure out the first card I saw in Mexico. Probably a TJ card in late 1993, maybe a TV taping... drawing a blank. Probably no later than right before the Nov 1993 Sports Arena card. Seem to recall they did a tv taping in TJ a day or two before that. Might have gone to a card between the Aug and Nov cards, though.

I don't know who the (up through the 1980s*) baseball Jamesian equiv of Duncan would be. Probably a cross between Joe Morgan and Mike Schmidt. Morgan in the sense of someone who didn't lead the league in things that people paid a ton of attention to at the time, and someone who'd been the best player in the league for probably three seasons (1972-74) before they got around to giving a pair (1975-76) when it became pretty obvious. A lot of the greatness of Morgan became more obvious in the era of analytics. Schmidt in the sense of him also being an analytics guy. He did have the HR titles that grabbed attention, but people at the time didn't get how historically great he was due to the BA. Except that relative to his sport, Tim's career is better than both. His peak wasn't as good as Little Joe's. It's probably not terribly far removed from Schmidts at Mike's peak... might be pretty spot on, though. But in terms of careers, he tops both... and it's not like those two had short careers. It's hard to come up with a similar baseball player to Tim. * up through the 80s since it's the time when Bill was coming up with these concepts and he wrote the original Historical Abstract

Will is losing his shit over the past week.

"Meltzer Sentence"

There's not a lot about Hase that I like. I don't really like his look, Come on, you gotta love the stache. Yeah... Hase has a great look. Between Hase's pornstache or Mutoh's bald spot, I'd take the stache any day. Or Hase's look vs this goofball teammate's look:

Shifted? Parker was drafted in the 2002 Draft as a point guard. The plan all along was for him to be the starting point guard. Antonio Daniels was the bench player, and he just passed time extremely briefly in the starting line up before Pop made Tony the starter in the 5th game of the season. It wasn't rocket science: everyone knew it was coming. Willis was 40 years old and played 12 minutes a game. He played as much as Justin Holiday did for this year's Warriors. "Justin Holiday?" Yeah. Willis was so important to the team that he played 5 minutes a game in the post season. Kerr had minimal impact on the regular season. 12 minutes a game. It's really insignificant. Claxton was a journeyman back up. He played just 30 games for them. They let him wander off after the season rather than pay him a small salary bump, and the kept on winning. Guys like Claxton are dime a dozen. Eghads... Manu was someone they drafted in the prior decade. He was one of the original Euro Stashes, with it just taking the Spurs the right time to sign him and bring him in. He just happened to be a rookie that year. As both Elliott and I have mentioned, he was GI-NO-BLI~! yet. That the team won 60 games before Tony was an all-star and Manu reach even being a "quality" NBA team is amazing. Moving him off the injured reserve? You do know that Captain Jack played 80 of the Spurs games that year, including the first game of the season and his playing time going up in the second game of the year when Smith went out with the injury. He played 3.5 minutes more a game, going from 9-6 to 10-6. It was marginal. The #2's on the other Western Conference playoff teams: 30-7-6 Kobe (LAL) 21-10-2 Marion (PHX) 19-6-3 Finley (DAL) 19-6-2 Stojakovic (SAC) 18-7-2 Harpring (UTA) 18-4-5 Szczerbiak (MIN) 16-3-5 Parker (SAN) 15-5-3 Wells (POR) Of course some of the #2's weren't all that great. Wells was a sign of why the Blazers were falling off from the 2000 team that pushed the Lakers. Harpring wasn't special. Szczerbiak was just a gunner. But most of those players were a good deal better than Parker in 2003, and... The Kings also had Bibby (16-3-5) as their #3 doing what Parker did as a #2. The Mavs also had Nash (18-3-7) as their #3 who was better than Parker. The Suns had rookie Stoudemire (14-9-1) as an up and coming #3, and of course the falling apart Hardaway So Paker as a #2 really wasn't much in 2003. Parker really wasn't Paker yet. He really wouldn't get their until the 2006 & 2007 seasons. Most people did think it was incredible. The Lakers were coming off a three-peat where they went 11-1 in the post season against team not called the Kings, including going through the Spurs 4-1. The other favorite were the Kings. Duncan was great. Webber got hurt in the playoffs. They'd won the first game at Dallas, then he got hurt in the second game. Perhaps they Kings beat the Mavs (it went to seven even without Webber), and perhaps they beat the Spurs. Who knows. Again, he did take over in 4ths. Every team had other guys have big games (or big moments) in addition to the stars. You just pretend it didn't happen on Jordan or Bird's teams. Kind of hard to know how many times people need to repeat this: Bird was a better offensive player, though Duncan was a very good offensive player. No one claims otherwise. Duncan was a great defensive player, and Bird was a mediocre one. The reason they didn't fade back into the pack after 2003 is because: 1. Parker and Manu became TONY! & GI-NO-BLI~! 2. Shaqkobe broke up 3. Webber blew up along with the Kings 4. The Blazers blew up 5. The Mavs farted away the Dirk-Nash team 6. The Suns largely butchered the Nash teams through dumb moves It's largely #1 why they stayed at a 50-60 win team. But as they got stronger, the West altered rapidly. Pop did a good job navigating it until the next great team in the West (the 2008-2010 Lakers) rose up. By that point he was dealing with a past his prime Duncan, which made him have to rethink the team As far as the Warriors, they had a weak supporting cast. There also was the slight problem that it was pre-merger and some rather good guys (along with a good deal of "depth") was playing over in the ABA. No one is putting Rick Barry in the Top 10 despite dragging a subpar cast to a title: it was a watered down league by that point.

And to tie things into the Duncan discussion, you'll see three of his teams on the list. If one were to do just a Post-Merger Top 20, you'd likely have a lot of Duncan Spurs teams high on the list.

This is something I tossed up on the BJOL boards a few months ago when Russell's defense came up. There's a little snark in it and some graphics, but I was trying to get the points across. * * * * * His job wasn't to score it will. It was to anchor the defense. What do we mean by that? Here are the Celtics in the Cousy-Sharman era before Russell game along. Points -------Cousy+Sharman------- 1951 4th of 11 teams (-0.9) 1952 1st of 10 (+4.6) 1953 1st of 10 (+1.8) 1954 1st of 9 (+4.2) ----------shot clock---------- 1955 1st of 8 (+5.9) 1956 1st of 8 (+2.9) So it's a high powered offense, the "best" in the NBA for five straight years. Well... some of that might be Pace, given Cousy's run & gun fast break style. Pace -------Cousy+Sharman------- 1951 8th of 11 (-8.0) 1952 1st of 10 (+2.7) 1953 3rd of 10 (-0.5) 1954 3rd of 9 (-0.5) ----------shot clock---------- 1955 1st of 8 (+3.1) 1956 1st of 8 (+2.8) Yes, the Celtics were a pacey team, and Red starting kicking it up with the shot clock. But even factoring that in, they were a very good offense: Offensive Rating (Points Per 100 Possessions) -------Cousy+Sharman------- 1951 3rd of 11 (-2.0) 1952 2nd of 10 (-1.2) 1953 1st of 10 (+1.1) 1954 1st of 9 (+3.2) ----------shot clock---------- 1955 1st of 8 (+1.8) 1956 3rd of 8 (-2.2) So this team that had the "greatest backcourt in NBA history" for six season prior to Russell and were an offensive force, they... uh... won nothing. Why? Points Allowed -------Cousy+Sharman------- 1951 7th of 11 (-8.1) 1952 8th of 10 (-7.7) 1953 8th of 10 (-8.4) 1954 9th of 9 (-10.1) ----------shot clock---------- 1955 8th of 8 (-11.8) 1956 8th of 8 (-11.6) Okay, they were a very pacey team. Perhaps they weren't really that bad of a defensive team. Defensive Rating (Points Allowed Per 100 Possessions) -------Cousy+Sharman------- 1951 9th of 11 (-6.9) 1952 8th of 10 (-6.1) 1953 8th of 10 (-5.7) 1954 8th of 9 (-7.0) ----------shot clock---------- 1955 8th of 8 (-6.8) 1956 6th of 8 (-3.8) No, actually... they were an awful defensive team. They improved a little bit in 1956, but still were bad. So we've found out why the best backcourt in NBA history won nothing while lighting up the scoreboard. Alright, so this team started winning a bit the following year when Russell came in. What happened? Points -------Cousy+Sharman------- 1951 4th of 11 teams (-0.9) 1952 1st of 10 (+4.6) 1953 1st of 10 (+1.8) 1954 1st of 9 (+4.2) ----------shot clock---------- 1955 1st of 8 (+5.9) 1956 1st of 8 (+2.9) ------------Russell------------ 1957 1st of 8 (+3.2) 1958 2nd of 8 (-2.2) 1959 1st of 8 (+3.3) 1960 1st of 8 (+5.6) 1961 3rd of 8 (-1.6) 1962 3rd of 9 (-4.3) 1963 3rd of 9 (-2.8) 1964 2nd of 9 (-1.7) 1965 3rd of 9 (-1.6) 1966 7th of 9 (-6.8) 1967 4th of 10 (-5.9) 1968 9th of 12 (-6.5) 1969 10th of 14 (-7.9) They continued for a while to score quite a bit in the Cousy era, and a little after. But... Pace -------Cousy+Sharman------- 1951 8th of 11 (-8.0) 1952 1st of 10 (+2.7) 1953 3rd of 10 (-0.5) 1954 3rd of 9 (-0.5) ----------shot clock---------- 1955 1st of 8 (+3.1) 1956 1st of 8 (+2.8) ------------Russell------------ 1957 1st of 8 (+3.2) 1958 1st of 8 (+3.3) 1959 1st of 8 (+7.7) 1960 1st of 8 (+3.0) 1961 1st of 8 (+2.4) 1962 2nd of 9 (-0.3) 1963 1st of 9 (+4.0) 1964 1st of 9 (+5.6) 1965 1st of 9 (+3.9) 1966 5th of 9 (-2.6) 1967 7th of 10 (-6.2) 1968 7th of 12 (-3.2) 1969 5th of 14 (-6.3) They continued to play at a high pace before dialing back in 1966 to a considerable degree. And here's where the breakneck pace hides the fact that a top of the list offense really wasn't as wicked of an offense anymore: Offensive Rating (Points Per 100 Possessions) -------Cousy+Sharman------- 1951 3rd of 11 (-2.0) 1952 2nd of 10 (-1.2) 1953 1st of 10 (+1.1) 1954 1st of 9 (+3.2) ----------shot clock---------- 1955 1st of 8 (+1.8) 1956 3rd of 8 (-2.2) ------------Russell------------ 1957 5th of 8 (-3.9) 1958 6th of 8 (-3.7) 1959 5th of 8 (-3.9) 1960 5th of 8 (-3.0) 1961 8th of 8 (-6.9) 1962 7th of 9 (-6.2) 1963 9th of 9 (-6.4) 1964 9th of 9 (-8.8) 1965 7th of 9 (-7.1) 1966 8th of 9 (-6.0) 1967 4th of 10 (-3.0) 1968 8th of 12 (-6.0) 1969 11th of 14 (-6.4) There were times when they were a poor offensive in PP100P, really poor. Before one blames Russell for that, look at the rest of the team as well: they others didn't hit at a really high % either. So wait... this team with a poor PP100P started winning titles every years... well... with the exception of two years. What happened? Points Allowed -------Cousy+Sharman------- 1951 7th of 11 (-8.1) 1952 8th of 10 (-7.7) 1953 8th of 10 (-8.4) 1954 9th of 9 (-10.1) ----------shot clock---------- 1955 8th of 8 (-11.8) 1956 8th of 8 (-11.6) ------------Russell------------ 1957 5th of 8 (-4.6) 1958 2nd of 8 (-1.3) 1959 5th of 8 (-4.8) 1960 5th of 8 (-5.5) 1961 2nd of 8 (-0.0) 1962 1st of 9 (+4.4) 1963 2nd of 9 (-3.8) 1964 2nd of 9 (-2.5) 1965 1st of 9 (+1.4) 1966 1st of 9 (+4.2) 1967 1st of 10 (+3.9) 1968 2nd of 12 (-1.7) 1969 2nd of 14 (-0.3) The defense instantly improved from Awful to Very Good. Wait, don't forget that we're talking about the paciest team in the NBA for part of that stretch. If that "drags" down the offense in PP100P, what does that do to the Defense? Defensive Rating (Points Allowed Per 100 Possessions) -------Cousy+Sharman------- 1951 9th of 11 (-6.9) 1952 8th of 10 (-6.1) 1953 8th of 10 (-5.7) 1954 8th of 9 (-7.0) ----------shot clock---------- 1955 8th of 8 (-6.8) 1956 6th of 8 (-3.8) ------------Russell------------ 1957 1st of 8 (+2.9) 1958 1st of 8 (+4.0) 1959 1st of 8 (+4.7) 1960 1st of 8 (+1.9) 1961 1st of 8 (+4.2) 1962 1st of 9 (+6.5) 1963 1st of 9 (+5.9) 1964 1st of 9 (+4.8) 1965 1st of 9 (+7.6) 1966 1st of 9 (+3.2) 1967 1st of 10 (+2.1) 1968 2nd of 12 (-1.2) 1969 1st of 14 (+2.6) Presto: you have the Greatest Defense of All-Time. One that went overnight from Awful & Not Winning Titles Ever to being Great & Winning Titles Every Year. This article took Defensive Rating (PAP100P) and put it in the context of League Average (i.e. 100 = Average) to come up with Defensive Rating+: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2185159-ranking-the-nbas-20-best-defenses-of-all-time 1. 1963-64 Boston Celtics: 112.89 2. 1964-65 Boston Celtics: 111.16 3. 1961-62 Boston Celtics: 109.99 4. 1962-63 Boston Celtics: 109.73 5. 1951-52 Minneapolis Lakers: 109.58 6. 2003-04 San Antonio Spurs: 109.35 7. 1960-61 Boston Celtics: 108.99 8. 2007-08 Boston Celtics: 108.7 9. 1992-93 New York Knicks: 108.32 10. 1993-94 New York Knicks: 108.25 11. 2003-04 Detroit Pistons: 107.86 12. 1998-99 San Antonio Spurs: 107.58 13. 1965-66 Boston Celtics 107.47 14. 2013-14 Indiana Pacers: 107.45 15. 2004-05 San Antonio Spurs: 107.39 16. 1959-60 Boston Celtics: 107.30 17. 1968-69 Boston Celtics: 107.18 18. 1969-70 New York Knicks: 107.14 19. 1974-75 Washington Bullets: 107.01 20. 2010-11 Chicago Bulls: 106.98 It's not a list that has some Russell teams. It's a list that's dominated by Russell teams. Why do people pimp Russell's defense? Because it was revolutionary and formed the backbone to a team that won more than any team ever. Does analysis bear out that the defense was the backbone? Yes. To the nth degree. * * * * * So... back from that post to PWO... I think we all have a habit when old timers wax about stuff like "X was the Best Ever at Y" to think the old timer is putting over what was great in his era. I do it plenty myself. With Russell's defense... the more I look at it and think about it and read about it, I think people were/are correct in saying he was the best defensive player ever and/or the most impactful defensive player ever. That team suddenly Got Great defensive when he showed up, then became Historically Great defensively as Cousy+Sharman were phased down/retired. It was a smaller league at the time, and it took a while for the number of Black Players to reach a strong level releative to the White 50s. But Russell's Celtics remained a great defensive team right until he retired when the were a helluva lotta blacks in the game and the quality of play had gone up a ton. I think people are right on his defensive greatness. No one in the 80s to the 10s had they type of defensive impact for 13 straight years. It's amazing to ponder.

Here's where I had them coming into this season: 1. Michael Jordan 2. Bill Russell 3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 4. Tim Duncan 5. Magic Johnson 6. Larry Bird 7. Kobe Bryant 8. Wilt Chamberlain 9. Jerry West 10. LeBron James 11. Oscar Robertson 12. Hakeem Olajuwon 13. Shaquille O'Neal 14. Moses Malone 15. Elgin Baylor After this season, I would move Lebron up to #8. Career is the reason. Lebron is 12 years into his career. I don't really care to put him #4 or #5, then he blows his achilles in the pre season, never is the same and I have to consider moving him down. I tend to rate people on the If The Dropped Dead Today method: where they are now, not where they could be. 12 years into his career, Kobe got to the NBA Final for the 5th time. The in the next two year they went 65-17, 57-25 & 57-25 and won back-to-back titles. Things change in a few years. If I had ranked Kobe at the end of 2008, he would have been closer to #20 than #7. I think one could, but I think people would be wrong to argue that. I'm pretty often smacked as a Kobe Hater among Lakers Fans/Fanboys, but even I wouldn't fail to give him his due that he the best player in the game between the end of Duncan's prime (2005ish) and the rise of Lebron to the top (2009 or 2010). That it was brief... that happens when there's overlap. Jerry West probably never was the best player in the NBA. Oscar never was. We can debate the Bird --> Magic --> MJ progression, but it would make Bird and Magic's rather brief since Moses was the best from roughly 1981-83 and MJ is... when? It doesn't leave a ton of time for Bird and Magic since they rub up against each other. Kobe is like that. Kobe has five titles like Magic has five titles. Magic wasn't the alpha in the first two. Kobe wasn't the alpha in the first... then things get messy as the team basically had two alphas over the next four seasons, and they weren't always on the same page. I think Kobe warrants credit for his five titles as much Magic does, even if I prefer Magic's mentality much more than Kobe's. I'll put in a separate post something that I threw up on a baseball board earlier this year when the discussion of Russell's defense came up. I hope that Will doesn't mind too much since we're getting a bit off of the NBA:Wrestling theme, but when I looked at the Celtics pre-Russ and during Russ, it was interesting to day the least. Also linked to someone else who crunched the defensive numbers differently but came up with something similar.

The trimmed fat one is the first title change. Starcade is actually a well worked 50+ minute match. It's WrestleWar that's the boring one of the bunch. In hindsight, there's a big bunch of "want to believe" in people praising it at the time and since through the roof. The Chicago and New Orleans matches are the better ones, and someone else can weigh in on the handheld ones from the same period.

Star + Role Players - MJ = Title

As I pointed out several times earlier, and Elliot has as well: that they were a 60 win team and won the World Title is something of a miracle with that pedestrian supporting cast. 2000 Los Angeles Lakers (67-15) Won NBA Western Conference First Round (3-2) versus Sacramento Kings Won NBA Western Conference Semifinals (4-1) versus Phoenix Suns Won NBA Western Conference Finals (4-3) versus Portland Trail Blazers Won NBA Finals (4-2) versus Indiana Pacers The Lakers went the distance against the Kings and Blazers, and needed 6 games to beat the Pacers. The 2000 Lakers were a vastly better team than the 2003 Spurs. Shit happens in the post season. 2003 Playoffs Points Per Game 1. 32.1 Kobe Bryant ▪ LAL 2. 31.7 Tracy McGrady ▪ ORL 3. 31.7 Allen Iverson ▪ PHI 4. 27.1 Paul Pierce ▪ BOS 5. 27.0 Shaquille O'Neal ▪ LAL 5. 27.0 Kevin Garnett ▪ MIN 7. 25.3 Dirk Nowitzki ▪ DAL 8. 24.7 Tim Duncan ▪ SAS 9. 23.7 Chris Webber ▪ SAC 10. 23.5 Troy Hudson ▪ MIN Rebounds Per Game 1. 17.5 Jermaine O'Neal ▪ IND 2. 16.3 Ben Wallace ▪ DET 3. 15.7 Kevin Garnett ▪ MIN 4. 15.4 Tim Duncan ▪ SAS 5. 14.8 Shaquille O'Neal ▪ LAL 6. 12.7 Drew Gooden ▪ ORL 7. 11.7 Shawn Marion ▪ PHO 8. 11.5 Dirk Nowitzki ▪ DAL 9. 9.3 Kenyon Martin ▪ NJN 10. 9.3 Kenny Thomas ▪ PHI Blocks Per Game 1. 3.3 Tim Duncan ▪ SAS 2. 3.1 Ben Wallace ▪ DET 3. 3.0 Jermaine O'Neal ▪ IND 4. 2.8 Shaquille O'Neal ▪ LAL 5. 2.1 Raef LaFrentz ▪ DAL 6. 2.0 Andrei Kirilenko ▪ UTA 7. 1.8 Shawn Marion ▪ PHO 8. 1.7 Kevin Garnett ▪ MIN 9. 1.6 Kenyon Martin ▪ NJN 10. 1.4 Tony Battie ▪ BOS Yep... disappeared often enough in the 2003 post season to do that. Manu: 2/6 (2/4 3P + 0/2 on blown layups) + 1 Steal Manu didn't take over. He hit two threes in a 30 second span, and did very little in the other 11:30 he played in the 4th. Jackson: 3/4 FG (2/3 3P) + 3/6 FT + 2 Rebound + 2 Assist +1 Turnover Jackson had an impactful 4th quarter. Of course it ignores that for the entire game, the Spurs were -10 when he was on the floor. Duncan: 0-1 FG + 0-2 FT + 4 Rebound + 3 Assist + 1 Block The three assists were on 8 of the 14 points that Manu and Jackson scored in the 4th. Duncan didn't shoot well. That is the beauty of Tim: he got that he wasn't having a shooting night, so he did the other stuff, including 10 assists and 20 rebounds. Kerr averaged 5-1-1 in the series against the Mavs. Tim averaged 28-17-6-3. You're not being serious, right? Here's what Tim did in the wins: Game 2: 32-15-5-3 Game 3: 34-24-6-6 Game 4: 21-20-7-4 Game 6: 18-11-4-3 The losses: Game 1: 40-15-7-1 Game 5: 23-15-6-1 He was showing up every game. This really is getting ridiculous. Kerr averaged 2-0-1 Paker 14-3-4 Manu 9-5-2 Tim 24-17-5-5 Yeah... that's right, Tim averaged more assists than the point guard. In game 3, Tim was 21-16-7-3, while Tony as 26-3-6 (yes... Tim had more assists than the PG) and Manu was 8-2-4. The team was actually underwater while Tony was on the court. In Game 5, Kerr has 6 points. Tim went 29-17-4-4. Really? Robert played for the Lakers in 2003. Tim was 27-14-5-1 in Game 5, then 37-16-4-2 in Game 6 when he laid the smack down on my Lakers. Kerr was a role player. The Spurs had to win 16 playoff games to win the Title. Kerr showed up for two of them. Look up how many of them Tim showed up for. Really? You're trying prop up the cast of the 2003 Spurs with that? Tony averaged 15-3-4 on .403 shooting. Manu averaged 9-4-3 on .386 shooting. Tim averaged 25-15-5-3 on .529 shooting. I'll repeat: Really? I'll take your word that you actually watched every game of the Spurs 2003 post season. I'll just have to say that you didn't understand what you were watching. Rose averaged 9-8-1 on .419 shooting. In the series: 24-17-5-5 Tim 11-8-1-2 David In the Final game: 21-20-10-8 Tim 13-17-1-2 David David has a nice game. Tim was a beast. In contrast to the team that destroyed the Nets the year before that had this second option behind Shaq: 27-6-5 Kobe You point to Kerr. Go look up Devon George in the close out of the 2002 Final... and he was the 6th option in that game. The 2003 Spurs were a lottery team if they didn't have Duncan. With him, they won an NBA Title that they really had no business winning. But he was glue for them. You mentioned the Spurs going to 6 games against the next. You seem to have ignored that the 1981 Celtics went to 6 games against a Rockets team that was under .500 that season. He averaged 15-15-7 in the series on .419 shooting, with the writers giving the Finals MVP to his teammate Cedric Mawell (18-10-4). Bird's shooting disappeard in that series, other than in the close out. Instead, he found other ways to contribute: his passing and helping on the board to prevent Moses from going total beast mode. Bird and Duncan were different players. Bird was a mediocre defensive player, other than being a smart rebounder who had the massive advantage over time of being matched up against non-rebounding small forwards. Bird's game was offense. In turn, Tim was an exceptional defensive player who didn't force his game into being a dominant scorer. The one time he averaged 25+ in a season was when the rest of the offense around him was horrible, and he still carried the team to a 58-24 record.

So it's wrong for SCOTUS to overturn DOMA passed by the People’s Representatives in Congress and signed by an elected President because they find it in conflict with the 14th Amenmend, but it's okay for SCOTUS to overturn campaign finance laws because they find it in conflict with the First Amendment. Again, he's not consistent. He doesn't care for campaign finance, so it's okay. We all know he really hates tuh gayz, so it's bad. As far as "Tony", I'm also someone who calls Clinton "Bubba" and "Big Dog" and "Big Dawg", and Tony's court college RBG or Notorious RBG, and one of my senators DiFi. So... if it's a bug up your ass, I tend to fly that bug across party lines, and across niches within the parties. As far as using wrestler's real names, it depends on the wrestlers. If you're talking to Konnan backstage in Tijuana, and everyone is calling him Carlos, and when he reaches out for the first time to shake your hand and say "Carlos"... you kind of get in the habit over the years of calling him Carlos. With Psic, I don't even remember his name and don't really care. You'll probably never see my use Shawn's real name, or Road Warrior Hawks even though they share the same one. On the flip side, does anyone really have a problem calling Mick "Mick", or should we keep the bug in the ass folks happy and call him Cactus or Mankind or Dude? So... eh. Pointing to "Tony" and going on "shoot names!" is a bit like going spelling flame. You have a point on Scalia's stuff. I don't actually agree with it, though I run into it regularly when his consistency / inconsistency comes up. But I also wasn't calling you a dick or a Tony-mark or a rube when disagreeing with it. Was just disagreeing. A rare occassion when I can say to someone else that you might want to chill a bit.

I always thought that Vince Sr. (or his management team) show a massive amount of long term planning in the period. It's not just the stuff people talk about like the "when Billy wins and when Billy jobs" stuff. There are other obvious things such as how they left the Bruno-Patera, Graham-Superstar and Bruno-Graham stuff open ended to use are major non-title matches in support of the new(ish) champs that followed. They also progressed Dusty and Mil up the cards prior to facing Billy, rather than just bringing them in off television. The Maivia match was odd, but Bruno would have some singletons in the 70s: Karl Kovacs, Bulldog Brower, Don Leo Jonathon, John Tolos, and the wacky combo of Buggsy McGraw & Lou Albano. That's setting aside any of the regulars like Volkoff who may have gotten a return singleton. Some of those guys were stars like DLJ. Tolos was more a LA star who was marginal in New York. Brower is funny since he also got a singleton in the 60s. Seems like Vince knew he couldn't go twice with the chump. There are times when one sees a singleton and wonders if some other plan fell through. Anyway, pretty brilliant booking. One scratches your head on why they didn't try something similar in 1981 or so, even for 6 months, to break up Backlund's run. But they made money hand over fist off dynastic face champs from the 60s on through the late 80s that it was just the way the did things, allowing them to forget the business they did with Buddy in the 60s and Billy in the 70s.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough on Windsor, where Tony was perfectly fine with the Federal Gov having the power to limit the definition of marriage and benefits that derive from it. He were states that granted marriage equality, and people who lived in those states who wanted the same Federal rights that other married couples had. DOMA prevented that. Tony was fine with DOMA expanding Federal power to deny rights that the states otherwise granted. It's not a State Rights, or a Federal Expansion issue with Tony. Nor are most of his rulings. We all could go find a dozen cases where he was more than fine with expanding government powers and trampling rights. As far as the "he isn't qualified to be a judge", I don't recall rolling that one out.

The "one and one" becoming common by that point was largely due to anti-Mormonism. Pretty much the watershed thing in the era similar to Hawaii triggering DOMA and Massachusetts triggering the wave of changes to state constitutions in the 90s then 00s. Fear of the Other tends to do the trick.

They're actually not consistent. In one, the originalist is pointing to the 1st Amendment to strike down legislation. In the other, the originalist is saying that the 5 in the majority shouldn't point to the 14th Amendment to strike down legislation. You can point to the first being a Federal piece of legislation, and the second being State pieces of legislation, but again Tony wouldn't be consistent. He didn't like the 5 in the majority pointing to the 14th Amendment in the Windsor case, which went to DOMA which was Federal legislation. In turn, he's been happy to vote to strike down all sorts of state pieces of legislation when the don't fit his world view.