Boris Diawat Bought out by Charlotte (CHA)

[Mainstreet]

I won't debate the merits of the aphorism, but the "attribution" to Einstein is spurious. No reputable source confirms that he said or wrote this, but somehow it has become "common internet knowledge" that he's responsible for it. If you think a bit about what Einstein spent his life studying and read other (reliable) quotations of his, you can get a sense of what his mind was like, and it's pretty clear that he would not have said such a silly thing.

No matter how spurious the aphorism, I want to give Einstein the credit just in case the attribution is correct.

Now we can move on to another quote attributed to Nikola Tesla.

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.

 

[elindholm]

No matter how spurious the aphorism, I want to give Einstein the credit just in case the attribution is correct.

Then by the same logic, you might as well attribute it to Hitler.

Now we can move on to another quote attributed to Nikola Tesla.

I don't know enough about Tesla to assess that one, but it sounds plausible.

 

[Budden]

I can think of several reasons not to bring Diaw back in so I'm not wholly convinced we should sign him. The main reason that I would push to bring him back in though is if they felt he could play alongside Gortat. Frye is just killing us, especially on the road and I just can't see Diaw playing any worse than Channing has been. If Frye is hitting from the outside, you leave him in there but if not you let Morris and Diaw have his minutes.Steve

The major problem with Boris Diaw is that, no matter how good his team is, there is always going to come a time when they get put to the test. If we're a bubble playoff contender, it's going to happen maybe 9 or 10 times during the regular season (82-game sched), and if you're a real championship contender, it might come in every game from the start of the playoffs until the final buzzer sounds. But during those moments, your five guys are going to need to take it from the other five guys. That team you have needs to be the aggressor; when the action picks up and the speed of every movement gets kicked up a gear (even the the pace may slow down, but people's muscles are moving as fast as ever), and with Boris Diaw, you're going to lose a lot more of those battles than you're going to win. Now look, there will be times when Doris gets the ball in a position where all he really needs to do is try to score with an acceptable amount of aggression, but instead he kicks it out to a guy on the perimeter for a contested 3. Sometimes, the guy will catch the ball and hit that big 3. But most of the time that's going to be a bad outcome.

I realize these percentages are extremely general, but let's say Channing Frye contributes very positively on the offensive end in 3 of every 10 games, and let's assume that the same is true about Diaw. Having two inconsistent guys subbing in and out for each other does not make it more likely that our power forward position will have a good game (either in the form of Frye, Doris, or a combination of the two). In fact, it's just the opposite. It means that we have two guys who have 70% odds that they're going to play poorly. You might say that the coaches will easily be able to see that one of the guys is playing a crap game and insert the other guy, hoping that this will be one of his good ones, but it doesn't work that way. With Frye, he's usually consistent within each game - if he starts out shooting poorly, he's probably going to continue to do so for at least the rest of the game, if not the rest of the week. With Diaw, he might string a couple of good sequences in a row, but he has a proven ability to go from hot to not (as in not noticeable until he reminds you he's in the game by doing something stupid at a crucial time) at any time. That's not the kind of guy you want on your team. Then, you add that to the fact that he's overweight!! Winners don't like to play with losers, but they're going to be much more willing to tolerate the costly mistakes of a loser if he's really demonstrating an effort not to do so. When 39 year-old Grant Hill just spent 40 minutes chasing Kobe Bryant around screens, pushing him off the block, taking charges, and then get to the offensive end and still have enough left in the tank to create scoring opportunities for himself and his teammates as often as anybody else on the team, and Grant Hill's team loses 108-101, the absolute LAST thing you want to see in the locker room after the game is the guy who can barely contain his excitement about the free tacos he's about to get because the Suns hit that all-important 99-point goal.

 

[Budden]

I won't debate the merits of the aphorism, but the "attribution" to Einstein is spurious. No reputable source confirms that he said or wrote this, but somehow it has become "common internet knowledge" that he's responsible for it. If you think a bit about what Einstein spent his life studying and read other (reliable) quotations of his, you can get a sense of what his mind was like, and it's pretty clear that he would not have said such a silly thing.

The saying is actually that "insanity" is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. It makes sense that Einstein would've said something akin to this, because he had a penchant for describing complex interactions with the a kind of artistic precision. Sometimes he'd make speeches where he basically reiterated his view that having a lot of people think of him as this extreme genius was really ironic to him. He would follow that with some sort of statement about some aspect of the world as he saw it; sometimes it was just pseudo-intellectual gibberish and that the guy really was just an average opinionated guy with a platform; other times he would say, "yeah all these theories that Newton and Euiclidicis and everyone else who preceded him, with all the complex and convoluted mathematical equations"? Yeah, e=mc^2..

 

[Phrazbit]

I can think of several reasons not to bring Diaw back in so I'm not wholly convinced we should sign him. The main reason that I would push to bring him back in though is if they felt he could play alongside Gortat. Frye is just killing us, especially on the road and I just can't see Diaw playing any worse than Channing has been. If Frye is hitting from the outside, you leave him in there but if not you let Morris and Diaw have his minutes. Diaw, as a key starter is a disappointment but Diaw as a 7th man might be a nice asset.

Steve

Frye has been horrific. He has been passing up open looks from 3 like Diaw passes up salads in the buffet line.

But seriously, worse than just being in his slump is that he will get setup with a perfect wide open look, do his little step pump, then pass it up and next thing you know the shot clock is blowing up on us. Its been going on a ton, in 4th quarters especially. I'd rather have his goofy butt shot a 3 with a 25% chance to go in than the freaking clock expire.

But as for signing Diaw... at this point Id prefer to just give more minutes to Morris and hope he develops.

 

[Phrazbit]

And by the way, Einstein also said:

"It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer."

BOOM!

 

[elindholm]

The saying is actually that "insanity" is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Yes, I know that, but it's still apocryphal.

It makes sense that Einstein would've said something akin to this, because he had a penchant for describing complex interactions with the a kind of artistic precision.

The part of your sentence after "because" is true, but it's unrelated to the first part. Einstein was a theoretical physicist. One of the tenets of theoretical physics is precisely that you do get different results from trying "the same thing" over and over. The pursuit of "artistic precision" would not inspire someone to come up with a metaphorical definition for insanity, that, even under the most generous interpretation, has nothing to do with insanity. If the "quotation" referred to "madness" or "naivete" or "irrationality" or even "optimism," then it would be possible. But if you think about it with any precision at all, it really has nothing to do with "insanity."

 

[Covert Rain]

Makes zero sense. We have been there and done that. The dude took games off. He was sporadic which made it extremely frustrating. He would look great and disappear for several games. This team doesn't need to look back. It needs to move forward.

Hell no on Diaw.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

The saying is actually that "insanity" is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. It makes sense that Einstein would've said something akin to this, because he had a penchant for describing complex interactions with the a kind of artistic precision. Sometimes he'd make speeches where he basically reiterated his view that having a lot of people think of him as this extreme genius was really ironic to him. He would follow that with some sort of statement about some aspect of the world as he saw it; sometimes it was just pseudo-intellectual gibberish and that the guy really was just an average opinionated guy with a platform; other times he would say, "yeah all these theories that Newton and Euiclidicis and everyone else who preceded him, with all the complex and convoluted mathematical equations"? Yeah, e=mc^2..

+1

 

[AzStevenCal]

Looks like I'm the only one that would rather watch Diaw play defense and fail to take the critical shot over watching Frye try to play defense and fail to take the critical shot. I guess I can sort of accept that. Channing gives us everything he's got, he just doesn't have everything a big guy needs. Boris has pretty much everything you could want from a basketball player but frequently fails to live up to his potential.

Steve

 

[jagu]

Thank god he's with the Spurs, we already have a guy afraid of bball (Channing Frye).

 

[BC867]

I can think of several reasons not to bring Diaw back in so I'm not wholly convinced we should sign him. The main reason that I would push to bring him back in though is if they felt he could play alongside Gortat. Frye is just killing us, especially on the road and I just can't see Diaw playing any worse than Channing has been. If Frye is hitting from the outside, you leave him in there but if not you let Morris and Diaw have his minutes. Diaw, as a key starter is a disappointment but Diaw as a 7th man might be a nice asset.

"I can't see Diaw playing any worse than Channing has been."

"Might be a nice asset."

Seriously, is that the best we can do?

Is that how you would advertise salad dressing? "I can't see our product being any worse than our competition." "It might be OK."

Suns fans deserve better than left-handed compliments . . . a phrase which I, as a lefty, don't like either.

 

[Phrazbit]

"I can't see Diaw playing any worse than Channing has been."

"Might be a nice asset."

Seriously, is that the best we can do?

Is that how you would advertise salad dressing? "I can't see our product being any worse than our competition." "It might be OK."

Suns fans deserve better than left-handed compliments . . . a phrase which I, as a lefty, don't like either.

I use the phrase "back handed" compliment to keep it PC, for all you lefties out there.

 

[AzStevenCal]

"I can't see Diaw playing any worse than Channing has been."

"Might be a nice asset."

Seriously, is that the best we can do?

Is that how you would advertise salad dressing? "I can't see our product being any worse than our competition." "It might be OK."

Suns fans deserve better than left-handed compliments . . . a phrase which I, as a lefty, don't like either.

Well, do you really expect to find something better than "might be a nice asset" just sitting around waiting to be picked up? It's moot now as the Spurs have added him to their roster. I know most people here only want us to bring someone in if they can shoot, I just thought it might be nice to add a guy who can actually play a little defense.

Steve

 

[Manu4five]

He had a nice first game with the Spurs, played very good D on Dirk and got an A from timvp at SpursTalk. (Duncan got a D in this particular game). He is not bad for a 4th big or so. Helped us that he is a good friend of Parker. Good luck to you. Hope u make the POs.

 

[Budden]

Yes, I know that, but it's still apocryphal.



The part of your sentence after "because" is true, but it's unrelated to the first part. Einstein was a theoretical physicist. One of the tenets of theoretical physics is precisely that you do get different results from trying "the same thing" over and over. The pursuit of "artistic precision" would not inspire someone to come up with a metaphorical definition for insanity, that, even under the most generous interpretation, has nothing to do with insanity. If the "quotation" referred to "madness" or "naivete" or "irrationality" or even "optimism," then it would be possible. But if you think about it with any precision at all, it really has nothing to do with "insanity."

On the subject of quotes, for some reason I remember watching 60 minutes about 15 years ago, and Andy Looney did a little piece on the perception that Americans were getting dumber, and that it seemed like with each new generation, the kids seemed dumber. He said that he didn't think Americans were getting dumber at all. Instead he just said that people of this generation seemed a lot more likely to comment on topics about which they knew little.

Keep in mind, this was before Facebook, twitter, "blogging", YouTube, or any combination thereof. It was before these boards - it was even before the backcourt2000 boards!

An example that comes to mind, just of the top of my head, is when you said stuff. It's not that you know nothing about Einstein. You know that Einstein was a physicist, and you also know that there are many physicists who believe that there are situations where doing the same thing doesn't always lead to the same result. You know just enough to feel confident enough to opine on a subject about which you clearly know virtually nothing. And nowadays, by the miracle of the Internet, you've been able to broadcast that fact to people all across the globe!

 

[AzStevenCal]

I remember once, about 15 years ago when my wife and I were watching our neighbor's kids one day. While channel flipping we came across Andy Rooney. After listening to a few minutes of the guy doing what he does best, the 6 year old in the group declared "that man talks too much".

Steve

 

[elindholm]

An example that comes to mind, just of the top of my head, is when you said stuff. It's not that you know nothing about Einstein. You know that Einstein was a physicist, and you also know that there are many physicists who believe that there are situations where doing the same thing doesn't always lead to the same result. You know just enough to feel confident enough to opine on a subject about which you clearly know virtually nothing. And nowadays, by the miracle of the Internet, you've been able to broadcast that fact to people all across the globe!

It is a curious and consistent aspect of your arrogance that you assume that anyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant. I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Bufalay]

One of the tenets of theoretical physics is precisely that you do get different results from trying "the same thing" over and over.

Seems like if you're doing the same thing you should get the same results. Getting different results should only result from losing a minus sign somewhere.

 

[carey]

He had a nice first game with the Spurs, played very good D on Dirk and got an A from timvp at SpursTalk. (Duncan got a D in this particular game). He is not bad for a 4th big or so. Helped us that he is a good friend of Parker. Good luck to you. Hope u make the POs.

Typical Boris though. 16 minutes, 1-1 for 2 points. He had a +/- of +20 though, but 4 personal fouls. Guarding Dirk is rough.

 

[Errntknght]

One could say that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of practice. I've heard that sometimes it does work out that way, but I can't claim much personal experience of such. I've managed to get more consistent at producing bad results a few times.

Sometimes we laud people for trying the same thing over and over - especially if they eventually get a different result - until that happens we call them crazy but then they're labelled persistent.

When the discussion of the this first arose on the board years ago I was of the same opinion as Elindholm - that it didn't seem to be the kind of thing Einstein would say. I did an internet search and found it quite widely attributed to him - and didn't find a substantiated attribution to anyone, Einstein or some other body.

Suppose that you have an experiment with an outcome you believe is not 'deterministic' (at least is in terms of the variables you can control). Your best guess is that the experiment has a 5% chance of success in each trial. Clearly, quitting after 1 failed trial is lack of persistence and continuing after 1000 failures is wacky... so at what point does the cross over from persistent to insane occur?

 

[Budden]

I remember once, about 15 years ago when my wife and I were watching our neighbor's kids one day. While channel flipping we came across Andy Rooney. After listening to a few minutes of the guy doing what he does best, the 6 year old in the group declared "that man talks too much".

Steve

Haha well that is why I called him Andy Looney.

 

[Budden]

It is a curious and consistent aspect of your arrogance that you assume that anyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant. I'll just leave it at that.

Yeah, I apologize for being kind of a d*ck in my response. It was un-called for and I'm sorry.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Yeah, I apologize for being kind of a d*ck in my response. It was un-called for and I'm sorry.

Steve