HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: otran@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Oai Tran)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
Subject: Re: Larry Bird
Date: 15 Apr 92 01:04:44 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

Bird is not the best at one thing, he's simply the best at
everything that deals with basketball.  Granted, he's not the
scoring machines that Jordan and Chamberland are, and he's not
leader in assist like Stockton, Magic, and Robertson are, and he's
not the rebounder that Jabbar is, but he's the best all around
player that played the game; certainly one of the top forwards to
play the game.  His career averages are 25ppg, 10rpg, and 6apg.  No
one comes close.  He shoots 50% FG and 89% FT, that's almost a 50-90
for his career, not just for one season which only a handful (about
6) other people can claim.  For myself, scoring titles, 100 pt
games, etc... doesn't mean that much.  I'm sure that if Bird had 99
pts in the last few seconds of the game, he would rather pass it to
an open teammate under the basket than take the shot himself; that's
the kind of player he is - he's a sound basketball player.  To be
considered the best in basketball doesn't mean to score a lot, or
just pass (taking nothing away from many point guards) but to be
able to do everything well.  As for defense, he's a smart defender.
Sure he doesn't run around hounding everyone, but he will do enough
to make sure his opponent(s) don't get layups and the sort through
execution.  He does have his moments too (remember the steal against
the Pistons).  How many players can even claim to have done what he
done in that game, or any of his other games.  When it comes to the
final basket to win the game, he's one of the best (Magic is pretty
good but that's magic).  His importance is great.  He single
handedly handed his team 29 more victories in his first season,
brought his team to the Eastern finals in the same season, and won
the title in the next season.  Only Robinson had a greater turn
around number, but he didn't do it alone (Elliot, Cummings).  Bird
will never be able to beat Jordan one on one, but remember,
basketball is a five on five sport.  Jordan my fly, and Magic
produces showtime, but watching Bird perfect the pick and roll with
Parish is never boring.  I have not been able to watch many of the
classical players (back in the 50's to 70's) but of the ones I have
watched in the 80's on, Bird is the best with only Magic even close.
What they do for their teammates and for their team is unmatched.
Jordan's team averaged mediocre .500 seaons for his first five
seasons.  To say that Bird is not a great player is to not know
anything about basketball.  As a final note, 90% of the players in
the league today couldn't put up 21ppg, 10rpg, 7apg that Bird is
producing this season, injury and all.

					Oai Tran
From: jcreamer@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
Subject: Re: Lottery
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:13:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: mac.1992Apr13.141304.2433
Distribution: usa
Organization: Macalester College

In article <1992Apr10.200850.26105@talon.ucs.orst.edu>, navarrer@bionette.CGRB.ORST.EDU (Roy Navarre) writes:
> In article <1992Apr10.042817.18508@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> gidi@Hilbert.Stanford.EDU (Gidi Avrahami) writes:
>>navarrer@bionette.CGRB.ORST.EDU (Roy Navarre) writes:
>>>If I was playing a lottery in which I had 1 in 66 chances of winning
>>>50 million dollars I and any other sane individual would be ecstatic.
>>
>>Even if a ticket costs 1 million dollars?  Well, have I got a deal
>>for you and for any other sane individual.
>>
>>--Gidi
> 
> Before I respond to your "deal" I'd like to know how this ticket
> will cost 1 million? Is this the new math I hear about??
> Roy

Well, assuming that your 50 million dollars is based on the team receiving 
increased revenue the team from having a star player and a good team, it 
stands to reason that a cellar-dwelling team with no superstars would have
decreased revenue through lower attendance, local TV contracts, merchandising
and playoff income.  Not to mention that if you lose in the lottery, you 
still get a draft pick to whom you will have to pay nearly a million dollars
with no guarantee of success.  Oh, and bad teams generally have to hire
extra staff to sell tickets (good teams sell themselves).

There's the cost of your lottery ticket.  Almost doesn't seem worth it, does
it?  Now you know why losing teams won't tank games simply for ping-pong balls.
     o_________________________________________________________________o
       ( Jeffrey "Good Morning is a contradiction in terms!" Creamer (
        \    IS/Communications Specialist - Minnesota Timberwolves    \
       o_)_____________________________________________________________)_o
p.s. The Wolves aren't responsible for my statements, and I'm not responsible 
for their won-loss record.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
From: bewillia@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Maj. Devon McKnight)
Subject: Re: Legend Bird
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 13:18:10 EDT

In article <204358@unix.cis.pitt.edu> pmmst8@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Paul M Mweene) writes:
>In article <1992Apr2.144221.27898@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>>> Now go and take that 20ppg, 10rpg and 7apg and compare it to the Mailman's
>>> stats. I am sick of hearing how Bird would be so much "better" for the Olympic
>I entirely agree with you, lets compare numbers and get over this sentimentally
>biased rubbish. In the process lets throw in SCOTTIE PIPPEN for good measure,
>How is it that some people have to satisfy a statistical criterion while others
>are eulogized and canonised without ever accomplishing statistics of any 
>significant worth ?
>
>Makala

	Larry Bird is the greatest passing forward in the history of the NBA.
He still has incredible passing skills, and despite having an old, tired body,
puts up more than servicable statistics. If you watch basketball in the way 
that I do, you put more stock in how someone plays, and not entirely upon the
statistics that they put up. Obviously Karl Malone outscores and outrebounds
Bird. But on a team that will likely start David Robinson, Michael Jordan and
Charles Barkley, do you need someone that may well score thirty points a game
and pull down fifteen rebounds as much as you need someone that will score and
rebound, but also distribute the ball better than anyone at his position ever 
has?
	One thing that I seem to remember is that the lane gets wider as it
gets closer to the basket. This will affect Malone a lot more than Bird, as
Bird scores a larger percentage of his points from the outside than Malone.
	You trade off no matter who you start. With Bird, you lose athleticism
and explosive scoring and rebounding. With Malone, you get a black hole of 
sorts, and lose a key distributor. Bird has lots of experience playing with
great players, and knows full well that it is important to the team's success
that he distribute the ball. Malone hasn't really had the greats around him 
that Bird has, and might have trouble adjusting.
	Imagine bringing Malone off the bench... he's obviously good enough to
start, and better than the vast majority of players he will play against. 
A second team with Karl Malone on it would make this team absolutely 
unbeatable (as if it isn't already), because the US would blow the other team's
doors in when its starters go out.
	Both of these men deserve to start... it's a wonderful quandry for the
US to be in. I think that Bird's ball-distribution and experience in playing 
with great players will make him slightly better suited to a starting role.
Add to that the shortened three-point line, and he could certainly make a huge
impact STATISTICALLY, although his value to the team lies in things (*GASP*)
that statistics can't measure.
	
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
From: jerryo@pdx103 (Jerry Orleck)
Subject: Knick Collapse (Was: celtic woofing)
Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 19:33:32 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.131554.14142@ll.mit.edu> nates@ll.mit.edu ( Nate Smith) writes:

>MEANWHILE:  WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH NEW YORK!??
>did we just see Pat Riley's Coach-of-the-Year blow up in smoke?

Well, Boston has not yet won the division but could this collapse be up there
with the Dodgers of '51?  How big a lead did the Knicks blow, with how many
to play?  Something like a 4 game lead with 7 or 8 to go.  Whew! 
-- 

Jerry Orleck                                  

jerryo@ichips.intel.com  
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
From: suresh@charles.cs.unlv.edu (Suresh)
Subject: Tark takes over Spurs 
Reply-To: suresh@charles.cs.unlv.edu (Suresh Kumar Vishnubhatla)
Organization: UNLV Computer Science and Electrical Engineering
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 19:45:51 GMT

Just heard this.  Jerry Tarkanian has a new job.  He is going to take over
the San Antonio Spurs from the next season.  They had a press conference
today afternoon.  Will post the details later.

-- 
Suresh
UNLV Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
From: dmjoffe@flower.Princeton.EDU (David M. Joffe)
Subject: Re: Nets playoff outlook
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: rec.sport.basketball.pro
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 16:12:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.160707.17932@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> jte@beefheart.cc.columbia.edu writes:
>
>I think the Nets would be better off getting rid of their 1st round pick  
>this year.  Unless I'm off the mark, I don't believe they (and how many  
>other teams??) have much of a chance of signing anyone for more than a few  
>hundred thousand dollars, given their bulging salary total....that is,  
>unless they were able to unload Sam Bowie and his huge contract.  Coleman  
>and Petro are stayin' right here in the Jersey swamps.  Kenny is either a  
>very-near future Nets star or a star elsewhere.  He's a cash cow at worst.  
>
>The Nets need to focus on:
>
>1. resigning Chris Morris
Granted, Morris has been playing much much better this year, though he
should never shoot a three pointer and he does anyway.  However, it's
hard not to believe that the fact that his contract is up has something
to do with it.  Of course, they can't let him go for nothing.  If you
could put him in a trade package for a more reliable small forward, I'd
do it.

>2. resigning Terry Mills
without a doubt

>3. solving the Anderson/Blaylock problem
Trade Anderson or Blaylock?  Fitch spoke at the beginning of the year
about a Petrovic-Anderson-Blaylock 3 guard rotation.  Now Tate George
gets more time than Anderson.  Even Doug Lee gets more minutes than him
sometimes.  I think you have to keep George because he is bigger than
Anderson and Blaylock, and should have a better chance at defending big
guards.  Mookie has been great this year.  If some GM still thinks that
Anderson's potential is as high as it was thought to be before the
draft, I'd unload him.

>4. deciding whether or not Fitch goes
Based on the way things go with the pressure of the NY/NJ media, they
will have no choice but to bring him back.

Add to this list
5.  Keep PEtrovic in NJ.  There are already rumors that big bucks will
lure him back to Europe after next season.  The Nets must know that he
will be here for a while before they can decide what to do.

Basically, Willis Reed has one huge decision to make (who does he trade
if anyone among the guards)  If the trade doesnt work out, Willis will
be gone before the end of next year.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
From: EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu
Subject: Calm before the storm (was Re: Home Court for Det-Bos????)
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:11:31 GMT

This is a big game tonite! Detroit and Boston both have 6-game winning
streaks. If Detroit loses, they may end up playing the Knicks in the
first round of the playoffs. If they win, there is still a chance of
getting home-court advantage if Boston loses their last game, and Detroit
beats Chicago next Sunday. My only prediction is that Boston and Detroit
will meet in the first playoff round. Sorry, Boston ;)

If Boston wins, get ready for more Boston/Bird boosting (even though Bird
won't play tonite). If Detroit wins, woof-meisters like myself will
break their relative silence (witness not a single "woof" for last nites
victory over Mil. in OT !).

--Eric
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
From: jcaproni@wpi.WPI.EDU (Joseph Barry Caproni)
Subject: Re: Oh that Larry Bird
Organization: of Petroleum Exporting Countries
	<1992Apr9.213534.7204@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 06:26:22 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.213534.7204@midway.uchicago.edu> dgh2@quads.uchicago.edu (Doug G. Huffer) writes:

   Checking the nbastats databases, I find that the Chicago Bulls had
   the number two draft pick in 1979 (well actually I knew that much - 
   that coin flip is more then infamous in Chicago), and drafted ....

	   David Greenwood out of UCLA

   Bill Cartwright was picked third by the Knicks
   Gee, Larry Bird or Magic Johnson being drafted by the Bulls, 
   but then we would have never gotten Jordan, oh well ;-)

Of course now that the Celtics never got Bird in '78, they probably
would have continued to suck and maybe wind up with Magic after the
Lakers took Bird in '79. Magic probably would not stay in school if he had
a chance to play for the Celtics, while if the Bulls got him, then he
might have come out in '80

.                                               -Joe
From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
Subject: Re: Most Valuable Player
Date: 17 Apr 92 20:58:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr17.143721.23037@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>>IF (a big IF) this "without XXX his team would have been a lottery team"
>>argument is a valid MVP argument, then nobody but Magic deserves the award. 
>>The argument is only a speculation for Robinson, but a FACT for Magic.
>>
>>C'mon, Jordan backers have been using this phoney argument for years, but
>>it didn't help him to win any MVP when the team was no good. 
>
>Actually, doesn't really hold for Magic either.  Remember that the team has
>been without Divac for a good part of the season and Worthy has been out
>for quite a while as well.  They have had to deal with a lot of changes this
>year, not just Magic...

But if we can forget David Robinson's 32-game improvement on the team 
was also due to the additions of Terry Cummings and Mo Cheeks/Rod Strickland, 
then how can we let trivial things like Divac and Worthy lower Magic's worth
to the Lakers?

I mean, nobody ever mentioned "Robinson AND Cummings AND Cheeks helped the
Spurs to improve by 32 games".

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com
                                          
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
From: peichin@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Pei-chieh Chin)
Subject: Spurs New Head Coach
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:43:49 GMT

Formal UNLV head coach Tar has been named new head coach of the San Antonio
Spurs.
I just heard it on the radio.  Glad to see Tar back to the business.

--
P.C.
peichin@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
From: liang@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Chuck Liang)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
Subject: Re: Portland vs. Petro (Was: Most Improved Player)
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:35:40 GMT
Distribution: rec.sport.basketball.pro
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Apr6.192742.17988@ichips.intel.com> jerryo@pdx103 (Jerry Orleck) writes:
>In article <72665@netnews.upenn.edu> liang@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Chuck Liang) writes:

>>That's the whole point!  Portland SHOULD have given him the time to
>>improve.  They were too impatient!
>
>Oh I see.  Portland shouldn't have played Clyde and Terry.  They should have
>left one of them on the bench to gamble on Petro's improvement, eh?   No
>wait.  He couldn't play the point so it couldn't be Terry.  Ah, I see they
>should have played Petro instead of Clyde.  Interesting Chuck.  I wonder how
>many coahes would agree with you.


  Have you read my other article on the matter Jerry? - The one about
Clyde and Petro playing togeather - with Clyde the point guard?

  You do know that Petrovich is averaging more than 20 pts per game
and shooting 51% don't you?  Those are all-star numbers.  Any good
coach could have figured out a way to use him if he tried.  Portland
gave up on him, I contend, because they believed that he could never
adjust his game well enough to the NBA.

  I contend that Petrovich would've been a better 3rd guard for
Portland than Danny Ainge - not to mention Walter Davis.
From: pabouki@eos
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
Subject: Rodman: What's with the Shorts?!??
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:02:19 GMT
Reply-To: pabouki@eos.ncsu.edu (PERRY ANDREW BOUKIDIS)
Organization: Project EOS

Dear Eric,

	I was wondering if you could give me the address of the Pistgoons
front office.  Someone needs to tell the Worm he really could use a little
more inseam on those shorts.  And everyone knows that if Bill Laimbeer
didn't tuck in his jersey, he would be sporting crack.  Maybe Bill has always
wanted to fall back on a plumbing career after his thug days are over
with.     

                                            
--Perry B.
From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
Subject: Re: UseNet Draft:  Call For Scouting Reports
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:10:31 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson


 > For each player on the list, you'll ideally have something like:
 >  Name: Sean Rooks
 >  School: University of Arizona
 >  Height: 6'11"
 >  Natural Position: Center/Big Forward
 >  Other Possible Spots: NONE
 >  Strengths: Best Offensive moves of any bigman in the draft. 
 >  Weaknesses: Questionable rebounder, some question regarding asthma.
 >  Poop: Had a strong year. Sean improved his rebounding and defensive
         skills but is still not quick enough to guard any small forward in
         the league. Plays well with his back to the basket and has *the*
         best drop step in this years draft bar none. Has shown some ability
         to hit from outside but knows his range is within 3 feet of the
         hoop. Played many minutes this season and seems to have quieted those
         folks who questioned his ability to play long-stretches night
         after night in the NBA.

         Sean had problems with Lute Olson through most of his career at
         Arizona but to his credit he never went to the press with any
      	 complaints but rather kept his feelings inside and played the game.
	 
          Sean won more big games for the cats than any other player over
          the past 3 years. He tends to play well in big games and has
          had good outings against the likes of Laettner and O Neal. This
 	  past season, Sean did have a couple of poor games, including a
 	  very lack-luster performance against Arkansas and of course the
          final game against E. Tenn. 

 	  He'd probably fit in well with a team looking for a scoring threat
 	  in the big forward spot. He is unlikely to make an impact at
          center but could certainly give some minutes at the spot. Due to
          his offensive potential, I would expect a number of teams to 
          consider Sean as a first round pick. 

			gln
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
From: mack@isl.Stanford.EDU (mack)
Subject: Re: Home Court for Det-Bos????
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 20:10:09 GMT

EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu writes:
>mack@isl.Stanford.EDU (mack) writes:
>>EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu writes:
>>
>>>Any team can beat any other team on a good night.
>>>Personally I don't value the home court in a Det-Bos series, seeing how good
>>>Detroit's road record is this season, and how bad Boston's road record is.
>>
>>And how good Boston's home record is and how bad Detroit's home record
>>is.
>>
>At least Detroit is winning at home *and* away.

I didn't argue against their road record. Detroit has a superb road
record and there is no question about that. At home, they simply suck.

>The same can't be said for Boston!
>A winning home record isn't my definition of bad.

Winning home record is not enough. The average NBA team wins 63.1% of
its home games. Detroit wins only 62.5% of its home games. Below
average, but close. On the other hand Boston wins 82.5% of its home
games, far better than average!

Detroit plays average at home, and excellent on the road, Boston on
the other hand plays excellent at home and average on the road.

So the first round matchup will be between an excellent home team
against an excellent road team. The other two aspects are plain
mediocre.

>Detroit's home record is better than their away record, so there!

No big deal, 26 other teams can claim the same. So there!

>--Eric

    --mack
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
From: fbrown@ssd.kodak.com ()
Subject: Manute
Originator: fbrown@earth
Organization: Eastman Kodak
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 17:22:37 GMT


After seeing how scrunched up Shaq looked when he got into
the sheriffs car on his special, I wondered what kind of
vehicle Manute Bol has. What would have enough head and
leg room for someone who is 7' 6"? Any of you 76er's fan
know?

Frank
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
From: bewillia@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Maj. Devon McKnight)
Subject: Re: The Final Four
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 02:56:20 EDT

In article <1992Apr4.013503.27814@risky.ecs.umass.edu> mirsip@risky.ecs.umass.edu (Ivan Popstefanija) writes:
>In article <1992Apr2.222943.14164@cs.rose-hulman.edu> erwinaw@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Anthony W Erwin) writes:
>>	Who's your pick to win the NCAA Championship?  I pick Indiana.   
>>They'll beat Duke by ten in the semis and blow away Michigan for the  
>>title.
>>
>>				Sincerely,
>>				Tony Erwin
>
> My rational pick is Indiana but emotional would be Michgan !!!
>
> Ivan Popstefanija

	I'm sorry. I thought this was rec.sport.basketball.PRO.
From: burtonr@qso.Colorado.EDU (Richard Burton)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro
Subject: Re: BOXSCORE: cha79ind80.14apr92
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:33:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: colorado.1992Apr15.183328.16093
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

William Lechner writes:
>cha 96, ind 123   14apr92

>ind (39-41)      min  fgm fga  3m 3a ftm fta or tr  as  pf st to bk tc ej  pts
>mccloud,george    23    6  12   2  3   0  0   1  2   5   4  0  4  0  0  0   14
>person,chuck      32    6  14   0  2   0  0   5 14   6   1  1  2  1  0  0   12
>thompson,lasalle  20    4   7   0  0   0  0   2  5   2   4  0  1  0  0  0    8
>miller,reggie     37    5  13   2  4   3  4   2  6   5   2  1  2  0  0  0   15
>williams,micheal  27    6   7   0  0   2  3   1  5   9   4  3  1  1  0  0   14
>davis,dale        24    5   9   0  1   1  2   0  4   2   5  3  1  2  0  0   11
>schrempf,detlef   31    8  15   0  1   7  8   3 10   8   2  3  3  1  1  0   23
>fleming,vern      25    6  11   0  0   2  3   2  3   5   1  0  3  0  0  0   14
>williams,kenny    13    5   8   0  0   0  0   2  3   5   1  0  3  1  0  0   10
>wittman,randy      4    0   1   0  0   0  0   0  1   2   0  0  0  0  0  0    0
>dreiling,greg      4    1   1   0  0   0  0   0  0   0   1  0  0  0  0  0    2
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why didn't Smits play in this game? Is he hurt? Is Hill tanking?

T-Bone Burton
CASA
Coors U.
"... inside to Detlef ... *SCHREMPF*!" - Dan Patrick