San Antonio Spurs 112, Phoenix Suns 110

by

Who would’ve thought four shots from one spot on the floor could mean so much? If the Richard Jefferson reclamation project needed a tidy little bow on it, RJ obliged on Wednesday night at the US Airways Center.

Jefferson hit four of five 3-pointers on his way to 28 points for the San Antonio Spurs in their 112-110 win over the Suns. Jefferson hit six of six free throws and grabbed four rebounds on the night too.

It was a far cry from Jefferson’s first game in Phoenix last season, when he scored just four points, shot 2-7 from the field and didn’t attempt a 3-pointer. It was a performance that in part lead to Spurs head coach Gregg Popovich telling the media afterward, “We had too many pathetic games from too many people.”

No, this wasn’t that. But really, it was all about those four shots, especially the three that came in as many possessions.

The first one was in the offense, a good play off a excellent pass from James Anderson. Jefferson should know that the long 2-pointer is the most inefficient shot in basketball, so he made sure to step back behind the line as he was gathering the ball.

The second one was just for kicks. He was open, so why not take it?

The third one? Well, that was a big middle finger to last season.

But the game wasn’t over with those nine straight points. The Suns still held the lead late in the game. And when it was needed, and any demons from last season might have crept back during crunch time, Richard Jefferson made sure they were dead and buried. Same shot. Same corner.

[Update: Our guy Bassy at NBA Playbook broke down Jefferson’s fourth 3-pointer, make sure to check that out.]

Enjoy the video, folks.

Again, sorry for the wonky quality. I’m still working out some kinks in our video process.

  • Jim Henderson

    Bentley
    November 4th, 2010 at 6:00 pm

    “Yeah, the first player that comes to mind is Hedo Turkoglu. We didn’t maximize his abilities and unfortuantely a team like Orlando did.”

    But Hedo didn’t work here long-term for a variety of reasons. Blair is much younger, has qualities that are not redundant on this team, and is a much more raw and unfinished product than Hedo was. It’d be different if Blair was a mature player, with established and known boundaries to his game. For example, if we had a mature player (or a player with clearly limited or substantially understood potential) and simply ignored his known & circumspect strengths to try and get him to be a player that he clearly wasn’t. That could be a problem. But that’s not the case here with Blair, who has not only significant, but substantially unknown upside. He is clearly a dynamic, not a static product.

    A key for coaches and player development personnel with respect to talented young players is to see that player for what he can be, and not too quickly settle for what appears more natural for that player on the surface. It’s all about trying to develop and nurture that player at the optimum pace, but young, somewhat raw players are typically not immune from what I call the “funky phase” now and then, regardless of how effective his support system is within the organization. It’s a process with Blair, and there’s bound to be some uneven production along the way. Undoubtedly the coaching staff will be recalibrating their developmental emphases and strategies on a regular basis. But again, these first 4 games for Blair shouldn’t worry any of us in the least. Blair’s in good hands with Pop and this FO.

  • Jim Henderson

    ThatBigGuy
    November 4th, 2010 at 7:30 pm

    “And so I suggest a move to the bench for him to sort things out.”

    But he’s not here on an island. We’ve got all kinds of great coaches in this organization that are probably as we speak working with him so that he can find a better balance to his game while he continues to gain invaluable experience as a starter alongside the GOAT PF of all-time.

    “You’re right, he’s a little overwhelmed, so why not take some pressure off him?”

    Yes, but there’s multiple ways to relieve pressure, and the best way in this case in my view is to give him some mentoring/counseling time in practice and outside of the game, and some leadership & confidence during games. We have the coaching & player personnel to accomplish this. Anyway, it’s too early to pull him, unless it was by design very short-term, or it could be a big hit to his confidence unnecessarily.

    “Yes, I’d rather start Dice for a few games. Dice is averaging 6.3 and 7.8 in less minutes than Blair’s 4.3 and 6.5.”

    But is that a big enough difference to make a change this early into the season when the team’s 3-1? Why not stick with a guy who’s your future instead of a guy that’s retiring? I’m not saying that Blair should start the whole year. He hasn’t earned that yet. However, given a reasonable chance, I think he just might, and the team could be better off for it, both short and long-term.

  • LonghornMike

    A couple thoughts about the game last night that haven’t been touched on:

    I liked Splitter on the floor protecting the basket with Duncan out of the game. That’s been a weakness lately and it was nice to see Dragic not get so many easy looks at the rim with the 2nd units on the court.

    No matter how our 2nd unit shakes out, I definitely don’t see PHX killing us with their unit like last year. I still have nightmares.

    Personally I thought Temple did a decent job on defense by keeping Nash from finding his rhythm. The absence of Stoudamire made it an easier task, especially with Lopez looking as a finisher of the roll.

  • ThatBigGuy

    @ Jim

    Agree to disagree.

  • http://48minutesofhell.com/2010/09/02/death-of-tradition anonymous

    I thought I had heard the last of the trade Parker talk but some guy up there is still doing it. I am looking forward to seeing Blair not starting. They go into the game ready to post him up. He needs to play against the other teams reserves for now, where he over powers them better. With Bonner and Splitter coming back and RJ’s minutes increasing, I expect to see that happen. Then if Blair starts to roll like in preseason let him play. We got to many players that can get hot from time to time to play someone thats in a slump.

  • Hobson13

    Geez! Who would have thought that there would be such a fuss over whether Blair started or not. First of all, I am very disappointed in how he has played to start the season. I thought he would have a monster break out year (and he may yet have a big year). With that said, we are only 4 games into the season and had we played with ANY heart during the NO game, we’d be 4-0.

    Blair needs to slow down and let the game come to him. If I had to guess, he’s put a tremendous amount of pressure on himself to be a go-to player on this team, especially after the preseason he had. Blair needs to relax, work on that jumper, and not force his shots. If he does this, we will see the return of the Beast.

    Assuming Blair does not produce and continues to play poorly (which I don’t subscribe to this notion), who the hell do we put next to Duncan? McDyess needs to be preserved for the latter part of the year. We can’t afford to wear him out in November/December by playing him 30 min/night. Bonner (God forbid him starting next to Duncan) is still suffering from an ankle issue and we know Pop won’t rush him back prematurely.

    Splitter will be a HUGE part of our team and will probably end up starting alongside Duncan. However, after taking off much of the past month with his injury and certainly not being in NBA condition, we can’t expect Splitter to start and play serious minutes for at least several weeks. I would be surprised to see Splitter start before mid December.

    In the meantime, Blair will just have to work through his issues. Besides, even when Splitter eventually starts, Blair will still be playing at least 20-25 min/night. Pop will probably put McDyess on ice until Feb or March and use a rotation of Duncan, Splitter, Blair, and Bonner in that order. Chill out on Blair, folks. He hasn’t played well and we are still getting the wins. He’ll snap out of his funk. I’m just waiting for him to bust another 20/20 game on someone.

    P.S. How interesting will it be to see Splitter and Scola face off this Saturday night? That should be a fun matchup even though we may not see it for too long.

  • andy

    wow, lot of nit-picking on blair. yeah, so he hasn’t gone gangbusters like in the preseason. all of a sudden he’s too short? too raw? too nervous?

    ok i might agree with the last one or two, but no one questions paul millsap anymore. elton brand in his prime was pretty damn good too, and he wasn’t exactly paul bunyan. take it easy, blair will figure things out, and if he doesn’t look like he’s going to, don’t you think pop will bench his ass? also, ThatBigGuy, you talk about sending blair to the bench so he can work on his confidence:

    “And so I suggest a move to the bench for him to sort things out. I’m not saying that he’ll should never start an NBA game ever again, I’m just saying that he should come off the bench a few times and gain some confidence.”

    but when has benching a guy given him confidence?

  • rob

    Jim Henderson

    “Yes, but there’s multiple ways to relieve pressure, and the best way in this case in my view is to give him some mentoring/counseling time in practice and outside of the game, and some leadership & confidence during games. We have the coaching & player personnel to accomplish this. Anyway, it’s too early to pull him, unless it was by design very short-term, or it could be a big hit to his confidence unnecessarily.”

    I know this comment was directed to someone else. But if I may comment on it…I think you’re wright in this case.

    My fear may not be based on supportive numbers more so than personal idea. But I would hate to see his confidence (or ability) deminish from being forced into playing in a manner that doesn’t allow him to flourish in a more natural style of play. And/or even lose some of that natural ability from being made to play another way.

    But I also agree that he is young and this coaching staff is some of the best in the business that should be able to nourish and morph Blair to becoming better all around than he is now. And that will take time.

    One thing for sure…this will test/develop his mental toughness. Which may end up being the best training he can receive. Hopefully it doesn’t break him.

  • Tim in Surrey

    [Thanks for the citation, Jim…]

    For what it’s worth, I’m glad they’re starting Blair and hope they continue. I think it’s the smart play. We probably all agree that DeJuan is smart, hard-working, coachable, and has a lot of composure. He’s also still the youngest player on the team (only 21). He’ll adjust, and probably do so very quickly.

    Remember that championships are won in the spring, not in the autumn. It is important to have the best record possible and get home-court advantage in the playoffs, as Manu pointed out. But the two Spurs teams with the best records ever (’95 and ’06) didn’t win titles. I think the point of the regular season, as far as the Spurs are concerned, is to make the playoffs with a team that will play as well as possible IN THE SPRING. The regular season record is important, but only a secondary goal.

    Pop is investing in Blair because he knows Bonner and McDyess don’t need the minutes right now (especially Antonio, who is historically the latest bloomer in the entire league). But DeJuan really does. Tiago will need minutes too, but probably not as many, simply because he has already been playing the kind of game the Spurs want him to play, at the professional level. DeJuan, however, is having to change the nature of his game. You can only do so much in practice, so he needs some playing time to become comfortable. As long as the Spurs are able to win most of their games, it seems like a smart move to start Blair–at the very least until Splitter is 100%.

    Another way of putting it is that Pop has the dials set for good performance and optimum development right now, which is wise for a young team (!) with ambitious playoff goals. That will probably change around the time of the rodeo road trip. I expect that, as usual, Pop will re-evaluate the lineup and set the dials for optimum performance and good development from then on.

    My $.02

  • bduran

    “Pop is investing in Blair because he knows Bonner and McDyess don’t need the minutes right now”

    This is key. In fact, too many minutes could be a detriment to his play later. Not enough minutes could be a detriment to Blair’s. Give the young, raw guys time to develop and conserve the older vets. In a few weeks I’d like to see both Blair and Splitter getting more time than McDyess, even if we think McDyess is better.

  • Tyler

    Over the summer, Blair added to his game – a jumper, a few post moves. As a result, the team is asking more of Blair (a good thing) – we’re isolating him in the post 1 vs. 1, which very rarely happened last year. (Most of Blair’s post up opportunities came after offensive rebounds where guys were scrambling.) Most people talk about how the game slows down in your second year, but for Dejuan, it’s the opposite. Because we’re asking him to do things he’s unfamiliar with, the game has actually sped up.

    Now, Blair’s going up against a set defense each time. That’s totally unfamiliar territory for Dejuan in the NBA. As a result, he’s going through some growing pains like most young players do.

    I think Dejuan is just trying too hard to show a few new aspects of his game. He’s clearly rushing – even his layups haven’t seemed easy.

    I’m sure the coaching staff is talking with Dejuan, telling him to simply go out and play – don’t think, just play. And do what you do best – attack the glass, run the floor, and out-work your guy. If he does those things, the rest of his game (the jumper, the isos in the post) will come in time.

  • ThatBigGuy

    @ Andy

    I’m looking at this from the perspective of one who has played through the college level, so when I say “I’ve seen this type of situation,” I have actually seen this situation. In my experiences, you can bench a guy without destroying his confidence. Blair is a smart guy. He’s well aware of his very slow start. If Pop sat him down and asked him to come off the bench, he’d probably agree, knowing that Pop was trying to help him.

    Some players would feel as if Pop was saying “naughty naughty” to them, banishing them to the end of the bench Mahinmi-style. But that’s not the case here. We all know Blair can be a good part time starter. Blair knows he can be a good part time starter. Pop knows this. It’s just a matter of having him step back, take a deep breath, focus on throwing down a couple 20 rebound games, and get back into the swing of things.

    So, by benching him in this manner, I would say his confidence would actually improve. I mean, come on, he’s shooting 23% from the field. He can’t have much less confidence than he has now, can he?

  • Bankshot21

    Blair would obviously be more effective off the bench. @ThatBigGuy mentioned several reasons why. His confidence needs a booster shot. Going up against these second units can assist him with that. His shot has been getting blocked a lot lately before it even gets to its apex. All of his starts were NOT alongside TD last season. Still taking some getting used to. Dice looks good out there. Who cares if he’s retiring or not? He’s sppreading the floor and not clogging the lane. Blair needs to forget about his offense and focus on what he’s good at. Once he stops looking for his shot he will find himself with easier opportunities.

  • Jim Henderson

    Bankshot21
    November 5th, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    “All of his starts were NOT alongside TD last season.”

    Oh really? Care to identify which one’s were not?

    The rest of your comments indicates that you don’t understand the game too well. I’ll leave it that.

  • Jim Henderson

    I double-checked Blair/Duncan starts. You’re right, just 4 out of Blair’s 23 starts were without Duncan (games #7, 29, 37, & 82). But that still doesn’t take away from the main point: that Duncan & Blair play fine together, and they have the potential to get much better with time.

    By the way, how many players have ever gotten two 20/20 games in their rookie season?

    Blair was one (two of the games in which he started). Any others?

    And yet you want a guy like that to be a bench player?

  • Jim Henderson

    From my previous post:

    “By the way, how many players have ever gotten two 20/20 games in their rookie season?

    Blair was one (two of the games in which he started). Any others?”

    To answer that question, you’d have to look at the rookie seasons of some of the greatest centers/PF’s to ever play the game. Guys like Abdul-Jabbar, Olajuwon, Chamberlain, Russell, Moses Malone, Shaq, Unseld, Duncan, Dwight Howard… Any way you look at it, it’s not a long list in the 60-year history of the NBA.

  • Jim Henderson

    Actually Howard did not do it. Just one outlier has done it in the past 15 years: The Number One draft pick, Joe Smith, for the 1995-1996 GS Warriors. Even Duncan only did it once his rookie season, and he played a lot more minutes that year.

  • Bankshot21

    Jim,

    I’m glad you had the wherewithal to find that data yourself. Kudos to you. While doing your research you should have seen that his production was at hits peak in the games Duncan DID NOT play. My knowledge of the game is debatable, as is yours so your statement concerning it, I find quite superfluous. Tip ins, hustle plays, recipient of pick and roll is his niche. Looking for jumpers and tear drops is him going out of his niche which is why he hasn’t been looking too good. The game he has looked best was actually the loss to New Orleans where he was vintage (I know it’s only his second season but I like the word vintage) gobbling up boards during the short lived comeback. The authority of Spurs basketball contrary to popular belief is not the too much time on his hands to research meaningless data Jim Henderson. We make up a conglomerate of fans who like to voice our opinions. Do not attempt to belittle such opinions. Its simply to easy to belittle you as well.

  • Bankshot21

    DeJuan Blair had TWO 20/20 games last year….BOTH games Duncan’s boxscore read DNP COACHES DECISION.

  • Jim Henderson

    Bankshot21
    November 6th, 2010 at 6:47 am

    “I’m glad you had the wherewithal to find that data yourself.”

    No surprise there. I’m the one that originated the data, something many on here don’t bother to do to support their claims.

    “……. While doing your research you should have seen that his production was at hits peak in the games Duncan DID NOT play.”

    You take out the GOAT PF of all-time, who do you think is going to absorb that vacuum? Blair of course, and that’s what happened on occasion. But the fact is, in the majority of Blair’s games WITH Duncan he had solid games (including two double-double’s, and many quite close), and the team won a comparable regular season percentage of those games.

    “Tip ins, hustle plays, recipient of pick and roll is his niche.”

    But you apparently don’t understand that BLAIR HAS NOT YET COME CLOSE TO CARVING OUT HIS FULL “NICHE”, yet seem to want to settle for what he already does best at age 21. That suggests to me a lack of perspective when it comes to the important area of player development.

    “The authority of Spurs basketball contrary to popular belief is not the too much time on his hands to research meaningless data Jim Henderson.”

    There are two kinds of opinions: One that carries some weight, backed up by data, knowledge, experience and logic, and others backed up by some amorphous substance in one’s head unsupported by objective facts. I’m happy to put some of my time into the latter. It makes for a much more meaningful conversation in my view. Saying things like “Blair would OBVIOUSLY be more effective off the bench”, without any data or systemic logic to support such a contention, is fine, but clearly lacks even a semblance of authority.

    “DeJuan Blair had TWO 20/20 games last year….BOTH games Duncan’s boxscore read DNP COACHES DECISION.”

    WHAT’S YOUR POINT!

  • Jim Henderson

    From previous post:

    “I’m happy to put some of my time into the latter.”

    “Latter” should read “Former” instead.

    By the way, here’s an example on how you build confidence in a young player:

    Danilo Gallinari, the young 22 year old SF scorer of the NYK’s, had struggled mightily with his shot early on in this season. For the first three games he was shooting 5 for 24 from the field (24%), including 2-11 from three (18%), and an avg. of 6 ppg. According to some on here his confidence must have been shot at that point, and he should have taken a seat on the bench for awhile to regroup. Well, Gallinari was not benched. His team showed confidence in him by sticking with him and giving him encouragement, and he responded in his most recent two games with 13 for 24 shooting from the field (54%), including 8 for 13 from three (61%), and an avg. of 20 ppg.

    In addition, even though Blair has struggled incorporating some of his inchoate offensive skills this year thus far, he is still averaging a respectable 9.6 boards, and 1.5 steals per 36 minutes.

    Blair has played well enough for us to stick with him at this early juncture (with a 3-1 record), as the Knick’s did with Galinari. Blair has a bigger adaptation this year than Galinari does so it may take a bit longer for him to snap out of his funk, but the wait could very likely be well worth it. A young, budding star gains confidence by being deemed worthy of the starting role, even if he has some off-game growing pains along the way. You don’t yank him after FOUR games.

  • td4life

    Regarding Blair, it’s important to realize that our staff is trying to develop DB into a more complete player. And that next year we will be without McD, so would you rather go with more DB, or more Bonner to back up Tim and Tiago (presumably) next season and beyond? I like DB’s natural game, but I am willing to see what he can add to it, and give him every chance in the world to make it work. We haven’t won against any solid competition, and against weaker teams especially, we should give DB all the development opportunity possible. Truly, the worse-case scenario is that he can’t adapt, and he remains nothing more than an undersized hustle/dirty-work guy. If it comes to that, he may be a fan favorite, but he will max out at 20 minutes night throughout his career, even if he shines in that role… I don’t really have a problem with that, but we should find out what the possibilities are. Maybe DB will return to a role of being a devasting offensive rebounder playing along Matt Bonner, in which case he definitely needs these minutes to improve defensively regardless.

  • Bankshot21

    Jim,

    A point can be made without proof being provided. Especially when I KNOW I am right. You mentioned something about Blair’s starts being with Duncan and I stated that was incorrect. I do not need to state which games he didn’t start along side TD. You did that. And how do you figure his niche isn’t carved out yet? Do you know how many players peak @ 21 and don’t reach their “full potential”? DeJuan is a beast at what he does and incorporating new things into his repetoire is having an ill advised effect on his game. The #’s show that. No graphs or mathematical equations needed. As far as Gallo is concerned that’s a foolish comparison that I’m surprised someone of your intellect would even make. Gallo was shooting poorly. HE’S A SHOOTER. He’s not changing his form or attempting 2 develop a post game. If that was the case then said comparison would make sense. Gallo was also a starter last year. DeJuan wasn’t. Do you see where all the holes in the comparison lie? Try maybe a JJ Hickson comparison to better make your point.

  • Pingback: San Antonio Spurs win in OT 124-121 over the Houston Rockets | 48 Minutes of Hell()

  • Jim Henderson

    Bankshot21
    November 6th, 2010 at 9:57 pm

    You don’t get it. I’m done trying to explain it to you. You continue to make rationalizations in a futile attempt to make yourself “right”. At this point I’m wasting my time on this subject. When Blair becomes an all-star in 3-4 years, get back to me. In the meantime, go ahead and continue to wallow in ignorance. Just not on my time.

  • Bankshot21

    Jim,

    Nice white flag. LMAO.

  • Bankshot21

    I’ve never seen someone get flustered to the point of insult hurling. What kind of establishment is 48MOH running over here. I’m ignorant for disagreeing with someone. Can someone, anyone, please tell me where that’s a rational depiction? Should I be as low as the gentleman who called me ignorant and say an insult in return. Or should I take the high road and let those having textual tantrums look silly? Hmmm…decisions decisions. HA HA HA.

  • Jim Henderson

    Bankshot21
    November 7th, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    When you make comments like these, “Especially when I KNOW I am right”, the point was not to offend you, but to knock you a bit off your stubborn horse. It’s not about a difference of opinion when you assert that you “know you’re right”. At that point it’s not even a debate about the facts. In my view it is pretty clear that you don’t have a good understanding about (I used the term “ignorance”, which you took personally – sorry about that) the value of proper player development in a young player with obvious potential. Don’t take it personally. But the point is the FO sees the potential, a hall of fame coach sees it, and many on this blog see it, such as td4life in his recent comment, which shows a reasonable perspective on this issue:

    “Regarding Blair, it’s important to realize that our staff is trying to develop DB into a more complete player. And that next year we will be without McD, so would you rather go with more DB, or more Bonner to back up Tim and Tiago (presumably) next season and beyond? I like DB’s natural game, but I am willing to see what he can add to it, and give him every chance in the world to make it work.”

    Sorry if I offended you, but you really don’t seem to have an open mind when it comes to certain issues, and rarely even use data to back your points up; in this case the importance of player development for a key young guy on this team, a team that is now 4-1 with him starting. And despite Blair’s early struggles, he has made a meaningful contribution to those wins, in ways that don’t even show up in the box score.

  • Bankshot21

    Jim,

    You asked me what games he didn’t start along side TD…as a fan I was POSITIVE that both his 20/20 games were Duncan-free. That’s what I knew I was right about. I watch the games like many of the other common folk on here. Like I said already, it isn’t about comprising stats and graphs and mathematical equations. Your usage of Gallo in that example was not good at all. I firmly stand by that and gave examples of why it was a poor comparison. You did not quote that I notice. You said you were done and I was to be left wallowing in my ignorance. Of course I took offense it was offensive. Did I take it personal? Not a chance. I like Blair. He’s on my fantasy team. The more he plays the better for me. That being said his efficiency is best with the 2nd unit. It’s that simple. Why wouldn’t I want him to be an All-Star? I’m a die hard fan of the Spurs. It is my OPINION, which is all we have, that he’d better serve us as a reserve. Many people say “agree to disagree” regarding debates with you but that’s far from my style. I’m on a stubborn horse sticking by my opinion…but you’re doing the same. You don’t see that?

  • Jim Henderson

    Bankshot21
    November 7th, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    “You asked me what games he didn’t start along side TD…as a fan I was POSITIVE that both his 20/20 games were Duncan-free. That’s what I knew I was right about.”

    Okay fine, but you do see the fact that Blair & Duncan played fine together for 85%+ of their games last year instead of 100% does not change the point I made with the data that I originally presented on this matter. But you chose to ignore the more substantive point, and instead raised a red herring as if it were meaningful.

    “Your usage of Gallo in that example was not good at all.”

    It is not a “perfect” example, but I wholeheartedly disagree that it’s irrelevant. Gallo did start 50 more games than Blair last year, on a crappy team, but that does not make the Blair comparison irrelevant. Blair starting 23 games is not meaningless. Blair’s two main natural strengths are rebounding & scoring. He’s having a confidence problem this year mainly as it relates to his shooting/scoring. Sure Gallo is more of a shooter, particularly from distance, but to suggest that their confidence issues have no similarities is also inaccurate. The fact is, they’re both 21-22 years old with limited NBA experience, and struggled with their confidence early on with their scoring. The Knick’s encouraged Gallo to work it out on the court, and you’re proposing that we kick Blair back to the bench after just 4 games. I disagree, for all the reasons previously stated.

    “That being said his efficiency is best with the 2nd unit. It’s that simple.”

    If by efficiency you mean “production”, I agree, but the same could be said about all of our bigs: on average they’re going to get more production when playing without TD because they’re going to get more opportunities. If you mean “efficiency”, you haven’t presented the necessary data to back up those claims. And using just the 4 games this year is not nearly a large enough sample size.

    “It is my OPINION, which is all we have, that he’d better serve us as a reserve. Many people say “agree to disagree” regarding debates with you but that’s far from my style. I’m on a stubborn horse sticking by my opinion…but you’re doing the same. You don’t see that?”

    I take it you have heard the expression that some opinions are worth more than others, right? This is not because the “person” offering them is more or less valuable, but that some expressed views simply make better use of available facts, logic, and history to in effect give more generally acceptable credence to their “opinion”. We all have a “right” to our opinion, but every “opinion” is not “equal” in terms of credibility.

    Or as I said in a previous comment:

    “There are two kinds of opinions: One that carries some weight, backed up by data, knowledge, experience and logic, and others backed up by some amorphous substance in one’s head unsupported by objective facts.”

    Both are fine, but certainly not equal in terms of credibility.

  • Pingback: Tiago Splitter, world-class defender | 48 Minutes of Hell()

  • Pingback: Are the San Antonio Spurs as good as their 25-4 record?()

  • Pingback: Hedge Hard, Jab Smart: A Deluge of Irrational Basketball Observations()