so annoyed

[star18]

Boy do I wish I was good at photoshopping I could really put up some cool stuff. 

[Rondo_is_better]

Boy do I wish I was good at photoshopping I could really put up some cool stuff. 

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.

[star18]

Boy do I wish I was good at photoshopping I could really put up some cool stuff. 

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.

That's OK I don't mind winning.

[star18]

If you could get a photoshop on my cereal it would be priceless.   You know what box I'm talkin about too.  Don't cha 

[Rondo_is_better]

the Casspi Turnover which ends the consecutive foul streak against the Warriors at 6, isn't a foul.  On the defensive end it is a foul.A 3 second call is a judgement call too sometimes, especially on the defensive end, because they can blame you for not guarding anyone and zone defense is illegal.   

Well, here is the section on fouls from the official NBA rule book:

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_12.html?nav=ArticleList


There is no mention of 3 seconds being a foul, on either the offensive or defensive end. According to the rules of basketball you are wrong.

But sure....

you win.

[star18]

It doesn't matter if it is technically a foul or not, it is a judgement call against you.   Anyway nba has it as this
06:08 Pierce Foul : Defense 3 Second (0 PF)

So obviously it is credited as a foul.   

[star18]

According to the rules of basketball you are wrong, but according to the rules of the box score I am correct!
06:08 Pierce Foul : Defense 3 Second (0 PF)
I'm not photoshopping the stats I don't know how to do that.  If I did I already would have shown you the cover of the best breakfast cereal ever made(hint, hint).

[Rondo_is_better]

According to the rules of basketball you are wrong, but according to the rules of the box score I am correct!
06:08 Pierce Foul : Defense 3 Second (0 PF)
I'm not photoshopping the stats I don't know how to do that.  If I did I already would have shown you the cover of the best breakfast cereal ever made(hint, hint).

I think you meant say, "according to the rules of basketball I am wrong", but you phsyically can't say that.

Basically what you are arguing is that the way ESPN lists things in the box score is more valid than the NBA rule book, which does not describe 3 seconds as a foul.

BUT, this is retarded, you will NEVER admit you were wrong, and your response to this will be "well I'm not wrong, if you take a look a these statistics you will see I'm not wrong" and you still will be, but that will have to be proved as well, but you still won't accept it, and the whole cycle will just go on and on.

So I'm done.

How you could possibly rationalize yourself into thinking you are right on this matter is absolutely beyond me. There is no sense is debating with someone one like you. (don't quote this and make a snide quip, just don't).

[star18]

I get the boxscore from nba.com, it has nothing to do with espn.  If they list it as this 06:08 Pierce Foul : Defense 3 Second (0 PF), why would I be at fault.  I'm not the one listing the 3 second as a foul nba.com is.

[star18]

C'mon relax

If I see the stats show something worse than 10 in 5:38 that means you are correct.   I don't cheat.

Getcha consolation prizes here!!

[star18]

Its not a debate, its about stats.   If a team won 30 games and another team won 25 games, nobody debates what team won more.  Besides even without the Casspi call the plays nickgenta bought up aren't at a higher rate.   It has to be more than 10 fouls in less than 5:38 for it to be a worse string of calls.  So if somebody got rung up 11 times in 5:38 or less, or got rung up 10 times in less than 5:38 it would break the NBA record.

[star18]

Here is another example on why the Warriors Kings example is way off.   
Even if it was 11 straight fouls against Golden State in 10:12.  which doesn't count the 07:44  Casspi Turnover : 3 Second Violation call against the Kings.
The 10:12 comprised of 47 possesions.
The 5:38 in the Celtics game comprised of ONLY 19 POSSESIONS!!!

See it looks as if you can find an example, the bottom line is, its impossible.  The Warriors & Kings play up and down the court quickly so it may look like similiar numbers at first.   However, because of the number of posessions its very far from being anywhere in the neighborhood or vicinity.

11 straight fouls against Golden State in 10:12 comprised of 47 possesions by both teams. That's only a foul for a little more than 4 total possesions for both teams.
10 straight fouls against Boston in 5:38 comprised of 19 posessions by both teams.
That is a foul for less than 2 total possesions for both teams.   The Celtics got called for a foul on 53% of the total possesions in 5:38. The Warriors only got called for a foul on 23% of the total possesions in 10:12.

47-19. 
53% to 23%. 

Anyway you look at it, the string of calls against the Celtics on Fri during that infamous 5:38 is 100% impossible and it shattered the NBA record by such a huge margin it may be one of the most ground breaking earth shattering records of all-time.

[star18]

"Wells breaks 41-year NBA record
Bubba Wells holds the dubious distinction of being the player with the quickest disqualification due to personal fouls in an NBA regular season game. In a December 29, 1997 game against the Chicago Bulls, then-Mavericks coach Don Nelson employed a desperate tactic to limit the Bulls' offense. He inserted Wells into the game with the express purpose of fouling power forward Dennis Rodman, a notoriously poor free throw shooter, away from the ball. This would mark Nelson's first known use of the defensive strategy that would later become known as Hack-a-Shaq.

The plan failed, however, when Rodman hit nine-of-twelve foul shots and Chicago went on to win the game 111–105. Wells fouled out late in the third quarter after registering his sixth personal foul in a total of three minutes playing time."

Now it was only 1 person Bubba Wells who got called for 6 fouls in 3 minutes and it broke the NBA record.   Since the Celtics got called for a foul every 33.8 seconds, and Bubba got called for a foul every 30 seconds, they almost would have broke that rate too.

Here is the thing.  They may have did just that.   Back in 1997-98 they didn't list the seconds played when a player played so it would always be an even number.  So it could have been in 2:36 or 3:24 we don't know for sure.  If it took place in 3:24 the Celtics would have broken that rate too, because that would be a foul every 34 seconds.

33.8 is less than 34.0.

See ya learn lots of cool stuff when you look at box scores.

[Roy Hobbs]

This thread is clearly going nowhere, as it's become repetitive and less than civil.  Furthermore, as our rules state:

Do not "hijack" threads, either by taking them off topic or making them your own personal sounding post.  Generally, it is not appropriate to post in the same thread several times in a row to get your point across.

This thread is a shining example of that particular type of rule-breaking.  There's no need to keep repeating the same argument over and over, just to see ones own words in print.

Locked.