Dumb Quotes of the Week (10/20/06)

by user The Beast

How can I not make an impact?

"Cardinals suck! They were only five wins over 500."

Thats true, but they beat the N.L. West Champions and N.L. East Champions, and are now playing for the world series.

"How can anyone like the Angels?" says a Cubs fan, "they were owned by Disney who just wanted to make money off them."

Doesn't every team's owner want to make money? Cubs fans should definately know this. They are owned by the Tribune Company, who refuse to spend money because they can earn millions of dollars off their lovable loser image.

"The Chicago Bulls are already awesome defensively, they struggled to score points... how does Wallace help?"

If you haven't noticed, Ben Wallace has been he NBA's premier defensive stopper over the past 5 years. Last year the Bulls averaged about 98 points a game while allowing just over 97. It seems they need the D more. By the way, the last 3 NBA Champions, Heat, Spurs, and Pistons were all outstanding defensive teams.

This week's winner is...

"Why don't they just meet outside in the tunnel after the ball game and get it on some more? You come into our house, you should get you behind kicked...You don't come into the OB...talking smack, not in our house."

This one is not even close.

The Beast respects the general public and the ArmchairGM community. Therefore he will not present the names of the people who have made these statements.

EnyboDiv-I Stud

1135 days ago

Score 4

I'd like to know who said that about the Angels, as a Cub fan myself, that quote is just dumb. Though the Trib is trumored to be letting Hendry start the season with close to $110 million dollar salary this year. So much for the ol' penny pinching days.

Permalink | Reply

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1134 days ago

Score 3

My quote of the week not related to sports... my local MP:-

"We are building an evacuation site outside of the town centre in case of a terrorist attack. It will be completely safe unless a terrorist attacks it."

British politics sucks.

Permalink | Reply

PnattRed-Shirting

1134 days ago

Score -1

haha, that's crazy. How come British politics sucks?

Permalink

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1134 days ago

Score 3

A variety of reasons. Since this is a sport site, I won't go into them here... (I would break the length of comment record).

Permalink

The BeastAAA-er

1134 days ago

Score 0

Can someone fix the Big Ben picture?

Permalink | Reply

M.SmithSoccer Kid

1134 days ago

Score 1

Hey BEAST. try looking beyond PPG which is affected by much more than defensive ability. Chicago lead the ENTIRE NBA in opposing teams FG% last year, the only true measure of defense. The only thing Big Ben will improve significantly is rebounding.

Permalink | Reply

The BeastAAA-er

1134 days ago

Score -1

Actually you win games by scoring more points than the other team. They averaged nearly 100 POINTS! Giving up 97. You have to limit points. Points is what wins and loses games. PPG is the only state that matters. Not FG%. What? A team can shoot an awful percentage, but get offensive rebounds. Thats where Big Ben comes in. He can rebound.

Permalink

M.SmithSoccer Kid

1134 days ago

Score 0

I said they the Bulls are great on defense. That is definately true, ask any league analyst. Offensive things such as pace of game and turnovers heavily effect PPG and of course rebounding does too... If Big Ben makes an impact its rebounding, not defense. The Bulls shoot from outside way too much on offense to be consistent, Ben doesn't help here at all. Not to mention the Bulls like to run, which is not good with Ben either. He's not a good fit, just wait.

Permalink

The BeastAAA-er

1134 days ago

Score -1

The Bulls don't have a great defense. How is giving up 97 points great? Please explain.

Permalink | Reply

Davis21wylieMVP

1134 days ago

Score 3

I think you guys should mix the best of both worlds. On the one hand, points allowed is the only statistic that matters on defense. On the other hand, points allowed per game can be skewed by pace, something that I believe M. Smith at least alluded to. The solution to this dilemma? Start evaluation defenses on points allowed per possession. That's what those "defensive ratings" are in my previews. Pts/possesion is the best way to judge defenses (and offenses, for that matter) because it takes pace away from the equation -- teams can't make themselves look better on defense simply by slowing the game down on offense. But it still deals in points, the differential of which is what actually wins games. It's the perfect solution!

Permalink | Reply

M.SmithSoccer Kid

1134 days ago

Score 1

Good point Davis. There is a stat 82games.com -- points per 100 possesions. Which is just points per possession times 100.

Miami Heat, who you say is great on defense had 105. Chicago had 104. So, Chicago is better by that stat than Miami on defense.

Furthermore, on offense Miami was 109, Chicago was 104... Seems like Chicago needs help on offense, LIKE I SAID.

Permalink

M.SmithSoccer Kid

1134 days ago

Score 2

By the way, the other finals team. The Mavs, were 105 on defense, 1 worse than Chicago. Mavs were 112 on offense, 8 better than Chicago. Wallace isn't going to help.

Permalink

CochiseWaterboy

1133 days ago

Score 2

Someone want to add the "Why is there a baseball playoff system" question into this mix. Keep in note it was written by a disguntled New York fan still looking for excuses.

Permalink | Reply