Re: Laker Haters: Best of

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:32:57 -0800, "brink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

>
>"igor eduardo küpfer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:08:21 -0800, "brink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> >
>> >"igor eduardo küpfer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> Hater? Where have I ever said that I hated the Lakers? Believe it or
>not,
>> >some
>> >> of us are able to form opinions without reference to emotions.
>> >>
>> >> >From: igor eduardo küpfer ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>> >> >Subject: Re: Quasi OT: Shaq vs. Kobe
>> >> >Newsgroups: alt.sports.basketball.nba.seattle-sonics
>> >> >Date: 2003-10-28 09:35:39 PST
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> >Yes, I said it: I don't think the Lakers have much chance to win more
>> >than
>> >> >50,
>> >> >or excel in the playoffs -- with or without Kobe.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I can't see where I've said anything incorrect: the Lakers haven't won
>50,
>> >and
>> >> they haven't advanced in the playoffs. QED. I anxiously await your
>> >apology.
>> >
>> >you said they don't have much *chance* to win more than 50 with or
>without
>> >kobe.  which was a bold predicition to make, but obviously at this point
>> >pretty much dead wrong.
>> >
>> >but since you still stand by that statement, i'll take some of that
>action.
>> >
>> >how much do you want to bet?  ;-)
>> >
>>
>> Bet that the Lakers haven't won 50 games? Twelve gazzilion dollars. Make
>that
>> cheque payable to ed küpfer, c/o Bad Bets Anonymous, Toronto Ontario.
>
>that's not what you said.
>
>you said the lakers didn't have much *chance* to win 50 games.
>
>and they had and have an excellent chance.  in fact, i'd say there isn't
>much chance they'll win less than 50.
>
>see the difference?
>
>> But seriously, I never understood why people think that betting lends some
>> kind of authority to their predictions.
>
>if you think that's what i think, you're mistaken.
>
>If I predict something, it means I
>> look at the circumstances and make a reasoned extrapolation as to how
>things
>> will go in the future.
>
>sure, and you made a bad prediction.  so it's time to cut your losses, so to
>speak, or take me up on my bet.  ;-)
>

My point is that these type of predictions have no truth value -- they are
neither right nor wrong. If Shaq and Malone go down with season ending
injuries -- not completely unrealistic -- then my prediction won't be far off,
will it? But I still won't have gloating rights, because I had no rational
basis for believing this would happen. Alternately, I would have little
rational basis for believing they would both be healthy for the entire season.
I simply wouldn't know either way, which is why my prediction is empty.

Note that this is different from saying something like, "if Shaq and Malone
remain healthy for the entire season, I predict the Lakers will win 60 games."
That is a _real_ prediction, one which can be true or false.

>If someone makes a contrary prediction, they feel that
>> I've inferred incorrectly from the present. In neither case is anyone
>"right"
>> or "wrong". The person who won the bet didn't know how things would turn
>out
>> any better than the loser did, they just guessed better. Maybe it's just
>me,
>> but a good guess is nothing to be proud of. It's certainly nothing to
>gloat
>> about.
>
>oh come on, what's usenet without a little gloating?  ;-)
>

Someone once wrote that "I told you so" is the best feeling in the world. To
the extent that I agree, I am ashamed. I try to deny myself such petty
actions.

>i said from day one that payton and malone would be fine and the lakers
>would be playign like gangbusters.  i also predicted that kobe wouldn't be
>"distracted" by his case, and he's been great.
>

Personally, I didn't think Malone would fit so seamlessly into the Lakers
offense, and I especially didn't believe in Payton's ability to guard the
perimeter so well. My respect for these players has increased greatly,
whatever happens for the rest of the season. (I also thought Shaq would be
playing much better. Luckily for the Lakers, this hasn't hurt them at all.)

>of course, i'm also wrong plenty of the time.  i predicted before the last
>baseball seaosn that the rangers would contend for the playoffs (whoops) and
>that a-rod would win MVP (ding), also that people would think dusty was a
>letdown in chicago cause the cubs wouldn't be much better (whoops again).
>

I called a Jays playoff team.

>>
>> >> (Hater? Really, I must protest. I have but two NBA hatreds, neither of
>> >them
>> >> Laker-related: Keon and tmoc. I am emotionally indifferent to the
>rest --
>> >> including your precious team, around which the world apparently
>revolves.)
>> >
>> >you haven't heard?  the axis of planet earth intersects shaquille
>o'neal's
>> >locker at staples center.  ;-)
>> >
>>
>> A good example of what I mean. I think Shaq is a total asshole. I've
>thought
>> that for years. I think he is, as a person, a discredit to the human race.
>
>why?
>

I really don't want to go into it. I'll just say that the incident with Yao
exemplified everything I dislike about Shaq.

>> But so what? He is a great basketball player, perhaps one of the
>half-dozen
>> best of all time. A versatile and exceptionally talented athlete. My
>contempt
>> for him personally shouldn't affect my appraisal of him as a player -- and
>I
>> don't think it does.
>>
>> Accordingly, whatever I happen to think of the Lakers as a whole (which is
>not
>> much) shouldn't affect my appraisal of their ability. If I predict doom
>for
>> the franchise, believe me, it's not based on emotions. To call me a hater
>> ignores my reasoning.
>
>i don't think too many people take the "hater" label as seriously as you do.
>come on, lighten up.
>
>wear it proudly.  ;-)
>

Nah. I'm trying in vain to promote the idea that some people are able to
criticize things with emotional detachment. I'm fighting a losing cause, I
know.

--

 --------------------------------
| best,     |   Sticking it to   |
| ed        | The Man since 1971 |
 --------------------------------
Watch the spam trap -- the domain is rogers