[Game] Kings vs. Wizards, 12/15/2021 7pm Pacific 10pm Eastern

It's not factually false. Why does "win at every level" have to equal championships? Because you decided? If he's never had a losing record before getting to Sacramento, then what level has he lost at?

If every Nba player has been on mostly winning teams prior to their NBA careers, what relevance does that have? None.

When someone says he’s won at every level, it always applies to someone like Davion, who has won championships at every level. That’s material info.
 
It's not factually false. Why does "win at every level" have to equal championships? Because you decided? If he's never had a losing record before getting to Sacramento, then what level has he lost at?

Indeed. If "win at every level" = championships only, then the overwhelming majority of players of all sports, every level, are "losers." Is that really the logic we wanna go with?
 
Last edited:
But, nonetheless, a great bounce back effort from all. You can't tell me these guys were putting the same effort, especially on defense in this game as they were in the Cavs and Raptors game.

More Davion in the starting 5. His best tool is his ball pressure which should is more aptly used against the best starting back-court player. Just helps set a great defensive tone.
 
But, nonetheless, a great bounce back effort from all. You can't tell me these guys were putting the same effort, especially on defense in this game as they were in the Cavs and Raptors game.

More Davion in the starting 5. His best tool is his ball pressure which should is more aptly used against the best starting back-court player. Just helps set a great defensive tone.
yeah, so much of that 4th quarter run came with Davion really pressing on the point of attack and disrupting the flow of the Wizards' offense.
 
Indeed. In "win at every level" = championships and only championships, then the overwhelming majority of players of all sports, every level, are "losers." Is that really the logic we wanna go with?

Its material, something that separates Davion from others.
 
If every Nba player has been on mostly winning teams prior to their NBA careers, what relevance does that have? None.

When someone says he’s won at every level, it always applies to someone like Davion, who has won championships at every level. That’s material info.

Kentucky in particular is one of the last programs I’d associate with winning. It’s where blue chip lotto bound guys hang out for a year waiting for their name to be called while getting bounced early in the tourney
 
Kentucky in particular is one of the last programs I’d associate with winning. It’s where blue chip lotto bound guys hang out for a year waiting for their name to be called while getting bounced early in the tourney
Kentucky made it to the elite 8 and lost to eventual champs UNC (led by winner at every level Justin Jackson) Fox's year though.
 
Kentucky in particular is one of the last programs I’d associate with winning. It’s where blue chip lotto bound guys hang out for a year waiting for their name to be called while getting bounced early in the tourney

For all of Calipari’s loaded Kentucky teams, he only won it all once at Kentucky.
 
If every Nba player has been on mostly winning teams prior to their NBA careers, what relevance does that have? None.
Don't change the argument, now. Fox had never played on a team with a losing record, until getting to Sacramento. Therefore, he's not a loser. If you want to create new vocabulary to describe an athlete who's not a loser, but didn't win a championship, that's your burden. But shifting the argument from "not factually accurate" to factually accurate but "not relevant" is transparent.

And, incidentally, winning an SEC championship, and SEC Tournament MVP award is not irrelevant.

When someone says he’s won at every level, it always applies to someone like Davion, who has won championships at every level.
Last time I checked, I am also "someone."
 
He should pattern his offensive game like Fred Van Vleet. That’s his offensive ceiling. Add that with his defense and the Kings got a top PG on their hands.

And if he does that's proven to get you paid at the NBA level. Will it be the catalyst to winning? Hopefully we see that come to fruition with the Kings.
 
Don't change the argument, now. Fox had never played on a team with a losing record, until getting to Sacramento. Therefore, he's not a loser. If you want to create new vocabulary to describe an athlete who's not a loser, but didn't win a championship, that's your burden. But shifting the argument from "not factually accurate" to factually accurate but "not relevant" is transparent.

And, incidentally, winning an SEC championship, and SEC Tournament MVP award is not irrelevant.


Last time I checked, I am also "someone."

Who’s shifting the argument? You are. I never said he was a loser. You did.

You’re moving goal posts. What Kate said was just pure noise that was intended to make Fox look good. I’ve never been a Kate hater, but some of the things that she says are just nonsense,
 
Not to rag on Alvin Gentry when he's down and out, but the contrast between Doug Christie coaching this whole game on his feet and Gentry chilling in his chair shaking his head while the wheels fall off in Toronto couldn't be more striking. I don't know if that's the entire reason the team clamped down and closed this one out strong in the 4th quarter but teams have been known to take on the personality of their head coach.
 
Back
Top