Could we call a truce ?
- Thread starter ManitouDan
- Start date
It’s just as much nonsense to call out Cal and declare his teams NIT bound or ten loss; and then label everyone that doesn’t agree a pumper and Cal nut huggers...in the first month of season
Just sayin.... and "many" of the ones that “liked” your post did/do just that.
Last edited:
He is shooting mostly good shots. Mostly.
he just sucks at scoring right now... but he is playing great defense, rebounding well and today; very good assist to TO against a very good defense team.
he has to shoot wide open shots. He can’t pass up in all of them.
And you would be wrong. I liked his post and never posted a single thing like that. I never said we were an NIT team. I never have said Cal is terrible and needs to go ( just the opposite actually). I’ve never said anything hateful about any of our players ( I have said a couple need to pick up their game and cut back on mistakes). I did say a couple of months ago that I thought the Sweet 16 was our ceiling and that’s exactly how we were playing then. We’ve improved as I had hoped and I now think our ceiling is the title. So, you see, your generalizations are wrong.
Last edited:
I don’t disagree, but like Cal says, “You don’t have to make them all, but you can’t miss them all either”. He’s been missing every single wide open three. I have no idea why, but that’s the fact of the matter. He’s never been known as a shooter, but he’s also not as bad as he has shown lately. Confidence? Mechanics? Lack of concentration? Forcing it? I sure don’t have the answer. I just hope he figures it out soon, because tournament starts in a week.
I always try to respect everyone’ Opinions. If I agree I’ll say so, if not I still try to show respect. What I have a hard time doing is watching a bully showing disrespect and calling names to those they disagree with. Where I blew up in the other post, I probably should have bit my tongue and let it go, most other times I would have. 99 percent of posters on here are able to disagree without being disrespectful, it’s the one percent that always stir the pot.
No you did not. Go back and read the last line in your post and tell me where that invisible word “ many” is. You said the ones that liked his post have done that. Don’t try to lie about your own post that is just up the page. LOL
excuse the shit out me. you are exactly right I meant every mother ****er that gave him a like...you are correct....please forgive me, please don't beat me again...feel better?
i meant to a some or many in there...i will fix...
That’s fine, but don’t get all pissy because you were proven wrong. No one can read your mind and say, well damn, he forgot to put a word in there. LOL
Last edited:
Loved those guys growing up! Handsome Jimmy Valient was always my favorite.
“Mercy, Daddy!”
Okay, but I've been called "a member of the CLOD" quite often. So, it's okay to be called names, but it's not okay to return the favor?
Serious question, because I don't use that term; but it gets tossed around by a few...
Exactly, what is a CLOD?
Is a person that doesn't like Cal and thinks he should not be coaching here
If, IF that is you...then you are a clod....
or is someone who shows up when UK losses or plays poorly? I really don't know
I probably have more "pumpers" on ignore than "clod type posters"
Wrong, my post may have been long, but it was properly written, didn't ramble, had legit paragraphs and kept the viewing audience interested.
I have yet to read a Dave post in it's entirety, because the grammar is awful and there are no paragraphs.
Oh well. I like my response better. It’s me, Dave. I’ve got the stuff.
Have to ask Bass, but he and his group of followers, label anyone that criticizes anything about UK or Calipari, "a member of the CLOD".
That's where the name calling began. "Cal Nut huggers" and "pumpers" are responses to the CLOD.
That stupid CLOD shit is the most juvenile crap I’ve ever heard. You’d think those responsible were 12. Their mothers obviously didn’t show them enough attention.
i got bass on ignore...i don't care to see his opinions or have conversation with him
so you blindly call people that...not just the guys that label you CLOD?
just because they back Cal and you don't...
Not preaching, but can’t you see you are just justifying him?
Last edited:
I’ve had him on and off of ignore. I don’t really like ignoring posters because you can’t follow a thread at times. But, 95% of the time he and his followers do nothing but bash other posters so you really don’t miss anything of any substance.
that is why I have more "pumpers" on ignore than the "Cal haters"
Who said I called anyone a Cal nuthugger?
I have used the name "pumpers", but usually in retaliation to being called a clod member.
But, there are a large number of sunshine Pumper's on here that ignore some negatives, get mad at guys like me that have an opinion, then get mad at Joe Lunardi, because our numbers show that we aren't a 2 seed. Then, when I correctly state that our bad losses are one of the causes if this, I get called a hater or a member of the CLOD.
Back on another topic.
The metric rankings put us closer to a 4 than than a 2
Metrics are flawed with others teams... so it’s not safe to assume they are correct with us.
without blue tinted glasses, and compared to most teams around the 2 line, we are as deserving if if not more.
lastly I think Cal has done a very good job of coaching this year...the stall ball many complain about; has been needed to save the guards’ legs.
I saw a stat that at the six min mark our average lead was 6 and our average win is over 8.
There is nothing wrong with that, but many here would say we have a 10 point lead at the six min mark and usually only win by 4 or less points
The problem with all the metrics out there is they weigh games played in November the same as games played in February and March.
That will always be a problem for UK, because with our youth, we will usually struggle in November and December.
But the metrics need to be changed to weigh late season games heavier than early season games.
Maybe they'll learn someday, because the last thing a 1 seed wants to see is a team like UK in the sweet 16. Loaded with NBA talent and playing their best basketball.
Why not, it seems the NCAA likes to make a lot if rule changes AFTER teams get screwed by a flaw in the current system.
No hes right. Every single year. Ppls "concerns" arent concerns they're just generally pouting and living in misery. Go back even just a month when they were barely beating vandy, not even talking about losses. Ppl were ready to give up on the team. Then everyone gives their absurd opinion on what works. One game Sestina hits a few threes, do it was why arent we running plays for him, then it was another team hit threes so cal needs more shooters, then a team out rebounded us so it was cal doesnt teach that, then it was athletes not players, then it was whatever else happened in a single game that another team did better. Everyone had the answer, except like every year they dont.
The ever present constant tho....everyone always and only focused on negatives. Never taking a positive away from any game.
Okay, this is a long one, but please, sit down with a box of thin mints and enjoy. If I help even one person understand why their emotional rollercoastering doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint, I will be overcome with gladness.
"You aren't allowed to debate me. I'm correct. But also, come debate me like a man and don't make fun of me."
Look, I don't have any beef with you as a poster. I have no idea what you know or don't know about probability, but this is a great setup for me to discuss something that really needs to be said on here about a few of our panic artists on this board:
If you want to talk about who should be allowed to debate, if we draw the line anywhere, it should really be between people who understand stats and those who don't.
With many of us the gap in understanding on this topic is literally the same as between a 5 year old child and their elementary school teacher, and as a result some of the loudest arguments about what "should've happened" are so misinformed that they're frankly embarassing and would force me to put a student into remediation.
I'm not interested in belittling anyone based on their education level (or if you got a pointless expensive piece of paper studying underwater feminist lesbian dance theory). It's not worth everybody's time to spend decades on any one topic, including mathematics. I get that.
Lacking understanding is not the issue. There are tons of things I know nothing about - auto body work, raising giraffes in captivity, building solar arrays, you name it. And I'm willing to admit it and listen.
In contrast, some believe that they innately understand from experience what is statistically likely and what is not, even though many have emotional, tear-smudged perspectives on what is likely to occur, and those percentages change from hour to hour based on their hormones and how much Maker's is left in the bottle.
Again, you don't need to waste decades in school - just a fundamental grasp of a few concepts would propel some on here to vast new heights logically.
At the end of the day, the debate is just going to be between people who understand the following: if you have, say, a 97% chance to win a certain game, and you play 35-40 games a season, then you will, with near certainty, end up on the wrong side of that game multiple times over a decade-long career. Let's call this horrible event "the bad loss".
"The bad loss" will occur regularly, at some interval or another, and it will occur regardless of effort, desire, focus, talent, or coaching ability. The nature of probability is such that once in a while the cumulative effect of bounces, refs, issues in the players' lives, illness/injury status, etc will simply combine in some bizarre fashion to not go your way, so a loss is not a truly unrealistic outcome versus any D1 team.
Yes, every single close loss can be explained away by a bad play here or a coaching decision there, but those mistakes occur in every game for every single team, win or lose - they are as certain as the sun rising in the morning. You probably fixate on these little flaws most strongly during close losses, but they always happen - they are a virtual guarantee unless we roll out 5 robots.
And even without these little flaws, "the bad loss" would still come with certainty due to factors I mentioned earlier (bounces/refs/etc), but it will come even more frequently given the fact that you can write into every game a few instances of human error. For every team in every sport, from now until the end of time. Guaranteed.
The people who don't understand this concept will act - not just sad - but genuinely, freshly horrified and experience anxiety that extends into their regular life whenever "the bad loss" comes (as rare as it may be) and they will scramble to find someone on whom to pour out their frustration because without any understanding, their only outlet for their emotions is to lash out.
And before I hear it, the point is not that the rational view is to accept every loss as fine. Sometimes a bad loss is obviously the fault of a coach or a player for a very specific reason/action that could be readily pinpointed and corrected.
But that's only the case for some losses. Often, the attitude and effort is all there, and things just fell apart in tiny little moments that add up. There is no level of perfection that you could ever reach that would eliminate losses or even just upsets.
In other words, the horrible losses that make some of you guys want to kick your dog are going to come from time to time regardless, just like a person with perfect health habits can still be diagnosed with many terrible diseases.
Many diseases are rarer in the health-conscious individual, just like losses (especially upsets) are rarer under Cal than any other coach. But they still happen, no matter how good you are.
So the rational view is to set some reasonable threshold of winning in advance (taking into account what other high level coaches in the modern era are able to achieve), and then look at progress over the years and decades. You stick with it and let that keep you measured instead of throwing post-loss tantrums that you would never accept from your 5 year old.
It's like with weight loss: often people with a tenuous grasp of biology will sit there and panic day-to-day with every pound up and down, and that is a massive waste of energy for them and is selfishly draining towards everyone around them.
You will gain and shed pounds over silly things like sodium retention and that small-scale data is just useless noise in regards to your actual goals.
The only rational way to approach weight loss is to set a realistic goal in advance (taking into account what other motivated people are able to achieve), and then look at progress over months and years.
In fact, some of those humans would describe the ice-creamless event as an example of "adversity" with a straight face. Although the ones who react the most acutely probably don't have that word in their vocab quite yet.
lol
"You aren't allowed to debate me. I'm correct. But also, come debate me like a man and don't make fun of me."
Look, I don't have any beef with you as a poster. I have no idea what you know or don't know about probability, but this is a great setup for me to discuss something that really needs to be said on here about a few of our panic artists on this board:
If you want to talk about who should be allowed to debate, if we draw the line anywhere, it should really be between people who understand stats and those who don't.
With many of us the gap in understanding on this topic is literally the same as between a 5 year old child and their elementary school teacher, and as a result some of the loudest arguments about what "should've happened" are so misinformed that they're frankly embarassing and would force me to put a student into remediation.
I'm not interested in belittling anyone based on their education level (or if you got a pointless expensive piece of paper studying underwater feminist lesbian dance theory). It's not worth everybody's time to spend decades on any one topic, including mathematics. I get that.
Lacking understanding is not the issue. There are tons of things I know nothing about - auto body work, raising giraffes in captivity, building solar arrays, you name it. And I'm willing to admit it and listen.
In contrast, some believe that they innately understand from experience what is statistically likely and what is not, even though many have emotional, tear-smudged perspectives on what is likely to occur, and those percentages change from hour to hour based on their hormones and how much Maker's is left in the bottle.
Again, you don't need to waste decades in school - just a fundamental grasp of a few concepts would propel some on here to vast new heights logically.
At the end of the day, the debate is just going to be between people who understand the following: if you have, say, a 97% chance to win a certain game, and you play 35-40 games a season, then you will, with near certainty, end up on the wrong side of that game multiple times over a decade-long career. Let's call this horrible event "the bad loss".
"The bad loss" will occur regularly, at some interval or another, and it will occur regardless of effort, desire, focus, talent, or coaching ability. The nature of probability is such that once in a while the cumulative effect of bounces, refs, issues in the players' lives, illness/injury status, etc will simply combine in some bizarre fashion to not go your way, so a loss is not a truly unrealistic outcome versus any D1 team.
Yes, every single close loss can be explained away by a bad play here or a coaching decision there, but those mistakes occur in every game for every single team, win or lose - they are as certain as the sun rising in the morning. You probably fixate on these little flaws most strongly during close losses, but they always happen - they are a virtual guarantee unless we roll out 5 robots.
And even without these little flaws, "the bad loss" would still come with certainty due to factors I mentioned earlier (bounces/refs/etc), but it will come even more frequently given the fact that you can write into every game a few instances of human error. For every team in every sport, from now until the end of time. Guaranteed.
The people who don't understand this concept will act - not just sad - but genuinely, freshly horrified and experience anxiety that extends into their regular life whenever "the bad loss" comes (as rare as it may be) and they will scramble to find someone on whom to pour out their frustration because without any understanding, their only outlet for their emotions is to lash out.
And before I hear it, the point is not that the rational view is to accept every loss as fine. Sometimes a bad loss is obviously the fault of a coach or a player for a very specific reason/action that could be readily pinpointed and corrected.
But that's only the case for some losses. Often, the attitude and effort is all there, and things just fell apart in tiny little moments that add up. There is no level of perfection that you could ever reach that would eliminate losses or even just upsets.
In other words, the horrible losses that make some of you guys want to kick your dog are going to come from time to time regardless, just like a person with perfect health habits can still be diagnosed with many terrible diseases.
Many diseases are rarer in the health-conscious individual, just like losses (especially upsets) are rarer under Cal than any other coach. But they still happen, no matter how good you are.
So the rational view is to set some reasonable threshold of winning in advance (taking into account what other high level coaches in the modern era are able to achieve), and then look at progress over the years and decades. You stick with it and let that keep you measured instead of throwing post-loss tantrums that you would never accept from your 5 year old.
It's like with weight loss: often people with a tenuous grasp of biology will sit there and panic day-to-day with every pound up and down, and that is a massive waste of energy for them and is selfishly draining towards everyone around them.
You will gain and shed pounds over silly things like sodium retention and that small-scale data is just useless noise in regards to your actual goals.
The only rational way to approach weight loss is to set a realistic goal in advance (taking into account what other motivated people are able to achieve), and then look at progress over months and years.
This is also the PC way to describe different humans' responses to realizing that they've run out of ice cream in the freezer. From age 3 to adulthood, that response varies wildly.
In fact, some of those humans would describe the ice-creamless event as an example of "adversity" with a straight face. Although the ones who react the most acutely probably don't have that word in their vocab quite yet.
Last edited:
Stats, averages, bell curves, population sample, probability is just another way of trying explain something away. Anytime you have a human equation involved you can throw all that crap out the window. Now if using those makes you feel better, that’s great. But don’t expect average, normal basketball fans to juggle a bunch of numbers to try and figure out why they saw a pitiful effort.
one of the main attractions to Coz - safe or safer than most cities in America
After you finish patting yourself on the back, remember this basic premise. There are statistics, damned statistics, and lies. To put it simply, statistics can be used to prove or disprove (and I use those terms lightly) anything. I had a college stats professor that made that statement all the time.
There are very few posters who fit that description year in year out. There are posters who can legitimately wonder if this years version of our team can get it together as ones in the past have. Almost every year there are glaring weaknesses that warrant discussion and Cal does have some bad coaching moments that likewise warrant discussion. 90-95% on the board are here to discuss our cats and yes there will be times of venting from frustration.
The pot stirring and calling people out generally is meant for anyone who says anything remotely negative and didn’t show 100% belief at all times. Hell I still don’t have belief in this team that they will make the final four or win the natty but that doesn’t mean I don’t want it to happen. It serves no purpose and just further divides the fanbase. If that’s their goal then more power to them, they are miserable SOB’s I’d want nothing to do with anyway.
I have participated in my last calling anyone out thread. Just going to ignore moving forward.
Latest posts
-
-
-
BB Recruiting More on Chaz Lanier (No workout attended by coaches)- Latest: Mike_Edwards
-
-
Reed Tied For Highest Max Vertical at Combine
- Latest: I-Move-Like-The-Pope