Voisin: Another Take on Adelman Extension

#1
A fresher take ;)

http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/basketball/kings/story/11073607p-11990334c.html

Ailene Voisin: Team takes wise stand on Adelman's contract



By Ailene Voisin -- Bee Sports Columnist
Published 2:15 am PDT Wednesday, October 13, 2004


There is no harm in asking. They always do. Rick Adelman is merely the latest NBA coach to lobby for an extension when his current contract nears the expiration date.


But the organization's response - cautious and noncommittal - is both prudent and appropriate.

Earn it. Prove it.

Demonstrate that the sneaker fits.

The 2004-05 Kings are in transition, and in contrast to the previous six years of the Adelman Era, they no longer present a united front. Hugs and high-fives have been replaced by curious stares and muffled grumblings. The locker-room discord that disrupted a cohesive style of play and prompted Vlade Divac's defection has been quieted, but only for the moment.

These situations tend to fester.

Geoff Petrie's inability to dramatically alter the team dynamic during the offseason - and in this situation, that would have required divorcing the coach and the franchise player - forces Adelman to revisit the very issue that will likely determine whether he sinks or survives: How to use Chris Webber in a manner that enhances rather than cripples the team's collective performance and its delicate psyche.

That question supersedes all others, transcends a variety of considerations that under different circumstances might have favorably crowded the Adelman balance sheet. The seventh-year Kings coach can indeed present a solid argument. He has overseen the Kings' emergence as legitimate contenders and in the process shattered most franchise marks for regular-season and playoff victories. Additionally, the entertaining style has transformed the Kings into global icons and Sacramento into a tourist destination. With few exceptions and amid several excruciating playoff disappointments, he has also enjoyed the support of his players.

"I certainly feel our staff deserves that nod of recognition, a little security," Adelman told The Bee last week, noting he has one year to go. Or maybe not. Coaches dread entering the final year of a contract with good reason; this is just management's way of applying pressure and heightening demands.

Seven years in one city in fact is an eternity in the NBA, and when faced with his most daunting challenge - the unenviable task of incorporating a gimpy Webber into the mix in the final weeks - Adelman's response reflected his non-threatening, non-nurturing personality.

He went with the flow, or more accurately, with the lack of flow. He went down meekly. The team chemistry became pure poison after Webber returned because the power forward wasn't close to being healthy yet was allowed to dictate his playing time at the expense of Divac and Brad Miller. And because by attempting to appease his star, who was eager but often unable, Adelman wound up placating no one.

Oh. And the Kings lost again in the conference semifinals.

So why not insist Webber adapt? Why not sit him down when he was clearly laboring?

Make the tough decisions. This is what coaches do.

True, Webber has always been an enigma and not much for the role of the foot soldier. The majority of his coaches are awed by his abilities but intimidated by his fluctuating moods and powerful, mercurial personality. They would rather acquiesce and accommodate than confront. Yet ultimately who wins? Certainly not the Kings, with the end result proving much more troubling than just another playoff ouster.

Divac, feeling betrayed by Adelman, who frequently removed him from games when he was clearly more effective than the ailing Webber, decided to finish his career elsewhere. Peja Stojakovic, upset about the reasons behind Divac's departure and his own diminished role, stewed in silence and later publicly requested a trade. Miller, the target of much of Webber's offseason sniping, refuses to respond but privately is thought to be miffed.

Petrie, who has presided over the Kings' rise, bolstering the squad with one timely acquisition after another (see Greg Ostertag), took Divac's defection hard. He would take Adelman's departure even harder. Although he and Adelman are former teammates and longtime friends, the Kings' basketball president isn't resisting the wait-and-see state of mind adopted by the increasingly restless Maloofs.

"Rick and I have talked," said Petrie, speaking slowly, and visibly uncomfortable, "but that conversation will stay between us. He has a contract."

But for how long?

With the regular season approaching, the players' mental health is no less pressing than Webber's knee, Ostertag's hand and Doug Christie's foot. And while Adelman can't replace Webber's knee, woo back Divac or ensure anyone's good health, he can even the playing court and impose one set of rules.

It's Adelman's call, but a tough job has become even tougher.
 
#3
Geoff said:
since when did Webb and Divac play the same position?
They don't. And she never said they did. But Miller is a C who played PF, so when Webber came back Miller played center and those two ate out most of Vlade's minutes.
Basically, more Vlade meant less Webber and vice versa.
 
#4
that's why they got Brad in the first place, to replace Vlade. I thought everyone knew that, including Vlade. Why would he be mad about less minutes if he knew he was a 'lame duck'? And i was under the impression he went to LA because he got more money from them; i have no beef with him about that.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#5
There are some good points in this article, IMHO. Unfortunately, they're going to be lost because - once again - Voisin has to find a way to creqate controversy and make it appear she only is privvy to the startling revelations:

Divac, feeling betrayed by Adelman, who frequently removed him from games when he was clearly more effective than the ailing Webber, decided to finish his career elsewhere. Peja Stojakovic, upset about the reasons behind Divac's departure and his own diminished role, stewed in silence and later publicly requested a trade. Miller, the target of much of Webber's offseason sniping, refuses to respond but privately is thought to be miffed.

Petrie, who has presided over the Kings' rise, bolstering the squad with one timely acquisition after another (see Greg Ostertag), took Divac's defection hard. He would take Adelman's departure even harder. Although he and Adelman are former teammates and longtime friends, the Kings' basketball president isn't resisting the wait-and-see state of mind adopted by the increasingly restless Maloofs.
Vlade clearly more effective? Maybe for very short periods of time, but by season's end and especially in the playoffs, it was clear even to me - the most dedicated Vlade Fan around - that the "old guy" was running out of steam.

I found one thing interesting, however. Voisin was one of the "writers" who broke the news of Pedja's request for trade, and hinted repeatedly it was because of his reaction to Webber's comments.

NOW, however, she says "upset by the reasons behind Divac's departure"... blah, blah, blah.

WHY is it always a conspiracy? Always hidden reasons behind the public comments. Vlade Divac, approaching the very end of his career, returned to the franchise that first gave him his start in the NBA. He chose money and loyalty to Magic Johnson over the Kings. It happens. My personal feeling is that Vlade, for all his public willingness to take the subordinate role behind Miller, was finding it hard to accept he would be coming off the bench. He's a work horse; not a thoroughbred racer, but a work horse. He wants to be out there plugging away.

Now, back to the gist of the article:

I think there is every reason for the Maloofs to take a wait and see attitude about Adelman's contract. As much as I like RA, if the team stays reasonably healthy this year and we still don't get to the NBA Finals, I think changes will definitely be made.

That part of the article IMHO was all well and good. It's a shame it had to be surrounded by mis-statements, innuendoes and biased conjecture. But, once again, that is what Voisin is paid to do and she does her job quite well.

One other comment, for what it's worth:

I certainly feel our staff deserves that nod of recognition, a little security," Adelman told The Bee last week, noting he has one year to go. Or maybe not. Coaches dread entering the final year of a contract with good reason; this is just management's way of applying pressure and heightening demands.
That's very strange phrasing for a columnist to use in a by-lined piece. It's almost as though she's using a quote given to another reporter...
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#8
Vlade quite frankly sucked eggs down the stretch last year. Webber was not himself obviously, but Vlade played like he was 100. I can count on one hand the number of times he deserved more minutes than he got after Webb's return. Actually I do not necessarily disagree with the assumption that he was pouting over his role. But that's nto a compliment. And pouting or not, he basically quit, either mentally or physically, and gave Adelman no REASON to play him more minutes.

BTW, now Miller was the "target of much of Webber's offseason sniping"? Really Ailene? As I recall, and I recall quite well, the grand total of Webber's offseason sniping at Miller was a single omission in his list of hard workers in the mid-summer interview. Quite the hack job Webber is laying on Brad. Or rather that Ailene is as usual laying on Webber.
 
#9
Wasnt there some reference to hitting the weight room and lifiting weights. I am not very sure but i thought it was in direct reference to miller.

Maybe there were lots of reporters waiting to hear webbers points, but i think everytime he opens his mouth he gets in trouble, he can just give interviews without talking about others, or atleast be not so demanding on the other players. Other players do give interviews but no one seems to get in trouble in the kings team more than webb.

Have we heard bibby talk about anyone in a bad way, demanding way. I guess he had equal right to talk the way he has produced the past two seasons. Why is it that it seems like webber has issues with everyone except bibby and doug, maybe he thinks that they were the ones who came to play in the playoffs but thats his opinion and his fans. Other players do have a right to pout the same way he did, afterall they did have the best record in the nba untill he came along.

If you can atleast count one instance where vlade deserved more minutes than webb, then that itself is enough proof. An old, smoking, slow runner deserved more time than your superstar, that doesnt sound good.

Yes i know you will say that he was injured and not 100%, then as i always say, he doesnt belong there if he is not 100%. Get healthy, prove that you deserve the minutes and then step on the court. As for your pouting and quitting, its the story of chicken and egg, which came first, non webber backers think that the pouting and quitting came after webb came back and played not being 100%.

To come back to your point, i didnt see any comments about bibby and christie, other than that there was something or other
 
#10
I saw this article on a basketball rumor website. I soon as I saw the title and Sacbee I knew it was going to be a piece by Ms Poisin.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#11
Voisin said:
"I certainly feel our staff deserves that nod of recognition, a little security," Adelman told The Bee last week, noting he has one year to go. Or maybe not. Coaches dread entering the final year of a contract with good reason; this is just management's way of applying pressure and heightening demands.
http://forums.kingsfans.com/showthread.php?t=521

Please check out the 8th paragraph. The quote utilized by Voisin in today's piece was ORIGINALLY given to Marty McNeal. Why? Because Adelman doesn't talk to Voisin.

Here's the applicable part (Adelman's direct quote) from McNeal's article:

Definitely, I want to stay here," he says. "I'd like that year. I love this group. I love the city. It's something you want to continue to do, but I don't have any control over that. But I do honestly feel - and I'm not being self-serving - but I think we've been pretty successful. I think that should be enough to reward the coaching staff.

"But if it doesn't happen, we have a job to do here. We have a good team. And I'll try to get us to win as much as I can. But I certainly feel our staff deserves that nod of recognition, a little security, and I think it helps the whole situation here. But again, it's not my option."
That's WHY the odd phrasing. She had to take a quote given to another sports writer to make her point because Rick Adelman will not give her the time of day.
 
Last edited:

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#12
vladetomiller said:
Wasnt there some reference to hitting the weight room and lifiting weights. I am not very sure but i thought it was in direct reference to miller.

Maybe there were lots of reporters waiting to hear webbers points, but i think everytime he opens his mouth he gets in trouble, he can just give interviews without talking about others, or atleast be not so demanding on the other players. Other players do give interviews but no one seems to get in trouble in the kings team more than webb.

Have we heard bibby talk about anyone in a bad way, demanding way. I guess he had equal right to talk the way he has produced the past two seasons. Why is it that it seems like webber has issues with everyone except bibby and doug, maybe he thinks that they were the ones who came to play in the playoffs but thats his opinion and his fans. Other players do have a right to pout the same way he did, afterall they did have the best record in the nba untill he came along.

If you can atleast count one instance where vlade deserved more minutes than webb, then that itself is enough proof. An old, smoking, slow runner deserved more time than your superstar, that doesnt sound good.

Yes i know you will say that he was injured and not 100%, then as i always say, he doesnt belong there if he is not 100%. Get healthy, prove that you deserve the minutes and then step on the court. As for your pouting and quitting, its the story of chicken and egg, which came first, non webber backers think that the pouting and quitting came after webb came back and played not being 100%.

To come back to your point, i didnt see any comments about bibby and christie, other than that there was something or other
Webber never said anything about Miller hitting the weights. If you can find a quote to show differently, I would be very interested in seeing it.

He is hesitant to even talk to the media any more, and you can't blame him. Virtually everything he says is subject to being taken out of context, misquoted, etc. In addition, people can find more ways to "read between the lines" than ever before in sports history.

Mike Bibby doesn't talk much. He hates to give interviews, is actually pretty shy in person and has his TEAM DIME around virtually all the time to insulate him from "outsiders."

Webber doesn't have issues with everyone but Bibby and Doug. In fact, Webber's main issue is with media hacks who twist his words, find hidden meaning when none was meant, etc. He's fodder for their grist, just like some celebrities end up on the cover of the tabloids every single week.

He's not perfect, but he's not anywhere near what Voisin has continually painted him. Ask anyone who has either met him, dealt with him, etc. You don't hear bad things from the chauffeurs who drive his limo, the guards at the practice facility, etc. Who's doing the misleading? Those people who deal with Chris Webber virtually every day OR the columnist who is angry at Chris Webber and Rick Adelman and uses the power of her column every chance she gets to take another swipe at them?
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#14
She had one about a month ago, I believe, that was actually pretty good. All I can remember, however, is that she actually put in a swipe at Webber that was pretty much totally unrelated to the article. I'll try to find it...
 
#15
As i said, i dont remember, but i think read some article about webber commenting on how miller should hit the weight room, this was there probably 3 months back.

I dont think team dime protects bibby from the reporters, bibby himself protects him. He knows what to say and more than that what NOT to say. Probably there is the problem, webb is outspoken and that more often than not leads to problems when you are talking about your teammates who may not be that close.

I agree that he has said many more good things about the same players , but in this world we will remember only the bad things.
 
#16
Webber never said "Brad Miller needs to hit the weights! Why doesn't Brad Miller just get into the weight room???!!! Come on Brad, get in there!" as Ms. A would have us believe.

I think it was more along the lines of "In order to help the team, I would like it if more players took their training seriously," or something like that. He never singled out Miller at any time, he didn't call out anyone in that or any interview.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#17
If you've ever seen Bibby out in public, you'd realize the purpose of TEAM DIME. But that's neither here nor there.

You keep saying that Webber is outspoken and that leads to problems. The point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't matter if he's outspoken or not, which he actually isn't. He has tried many times to be open with reporters, and he's been smacked for his efforts.

We will remember only the bad things? Sorry, but I don't recall any BAD THINGS. I recall things that were taken to mean something derogatory, but that's about it. Take Webber's words on their face and you don't see a lot of "bad things." It's when you say, "Yes, but it's clear he meant... " or "Well, that means..."

What did he actually say? He said he wants to play with the guys who want it as badly as he does. When pressed, he named some names. When he didn't name everyone, people immediately took it to mean he left them out intentionally when that isn't necessarily true.

His interview with Marty McNeal was pretty comprehensive. And McNeal's comments about Webber were also pretty clear. If people just took the words at face value, perhaps there wouldn't be so many misunderstandings about what was and wasn't said, what was and wasn't meant, etc. But if that happened, Voisin wouldn't have anything to write about...
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#18
VF21 said:
She had one about a month ago, I believe, that was actually pretty good. All I can remember, however, is that she actually put in a swipe at Webber that was pretty much totally unrelated to the article. I'll try to find it...
Okay, I found it. It was a piece published on July 24, 2004 about the need for the Kings and the city of Sacramento to bring in a facilitator to iron out differences about the possibility of an arena.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/10114046p-11034862c.html

It was really a pretty good article. It wasn't really about the team at all, but Voisin found a way to take a jab at Webber anyway:

Much like the Kings, whose season was doomed by a lack of leadership after Chris Webber returned following his 58-game absence, an agreement for a new facility is destined to fail unless the parties involve someone with the keen grasp of the issues and the interpersonal skills to mediate disputes.
The article was perfectly acceptable without the reference to Webber, so why is it there? To fuel the flames; to provide another little jab at Chris Webber. There is no other logical explanation for that choice of phrase. Is there?
 
#20
Mad D said:
I saw this article on a basketball rumor website. I soon as I saw the title and Sacbee I knew it was going to be a piece by Ms Poisin.
Same here. I saw a clip of it and immediately knew who the author was. I guess that could be good or bad depending on what the Bee is going for.
 
#21
What I don't get is what exactly is wrong with what webber said? Isn't it logical that if part of your job description is to defend a 360 lb man in the post then perhaps you should probably at least think about spending a lil time in the weight room? If my best friend/teammate/brother/sister/father played regular season games like a superstar but shrunk under the pressure of big games, shouldn't it be necessary for a lil constructive criticism. If you're at work and you saw 4-12 people on your team putting forth maximum effort in making it to a deadline what exactly is wrong with pointing that out? If you read the statements everything he said would help the team, would it not? These are grown men athletes who play professional basketball for a living. Not your local band of recreational league 4th graders at the local youth center. Voison love of peja is borderline disgusting and will fly to coddle him if anything negative is said about her precious. Vlade bless his heart looked too tired or too old or maybe a combination of both to be on the floor in the playoffs. This isn't the amateurs, in professional sports your job is to produce. And I definitely feel a lot of the kings as usual weren't producing in the playoffs. So something had to be said and if it was me in Webber's shoes it would have been a whole lot more.
 
Last edited:
#22
The problem with Webber's comments are not really what he said. The problem is that he, as someone who failed the team through his suspensions, and as someone whose presence coincided with a dramatic drop in team effectiveness, needed to be more prudent about what he said publically. Even though he was very diplomatic in not naming names, his comments were still harsh, and probably too harsh to be aired in public that way.

In addition, given that Webber messed up with his suspensions and given that the team failed to achieve its goals, the appropriate response would be to criticize yourself more harshly than anybody else. While it sounds like Webber does acknowledge to himself that he can improve, he has a hard time expressing that in his public statements. So it comes across as him criticizing others without pointing the finger at himself. Even the best player must be his own harshest critic in order for his criticism of others to be taken seriously.

Of course, I don't think anybody on the team has publicly stated any problems with what Webber said. Only Adelman has said he wished Webber wouldn't go public like that. I think the biggest negative was the effect it had on the fan base. Webber should know that he must be extremely careful with what he says to the media, because there are fans, columnists, and radio personalities that don't think it's appropriate for him to say those things, and it will cause a stir like the one over the summer. So really, he should have erred on the side of self-criticism, or just not granted the interview at all.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#23
Kingscast23 - The point is, again, Webber DIDN'T say - at least in public - anything about Miller needing to hit the weight room. In fact, almost all the alleged comments being quoted are things people have read into his statements, not things he actually said.

I do agree with uolj that Webber needs to be more prudent about what he says publically - mainly because ANYTHING he says will be twisted by someone to reflect negatively.

But as far as not granting interviews go, Webber is between a rock and a hard place. If he doesn't talk to the media at all, he's considered to be aloof, in denial, etc. So he sits and talks with Marty McNeal, pretty much says how he feels, and he's still lambasted by some because they feel he should have said something differently OR they interpret his comments to mean something deeper, more sinister, etc.

If it was me, I would never again open my mouth in public. Unfortunately, Webber isn't like that. And some members of the media will continue to put their own spin on it.

At this point, I hope he and the rest of the team can forget all this crap that has become high drama and just go out and play some hoops.

GO KINGS!!!
 
#25
VF21 said:
Kingscast23 - The point is, again, Webber DIDN'T say - at least in public - anything about Miller needing to hit the weight room. In fact, almost all the alleged comments being quoted are things people have read into his statements, not things he actually said. I do agree with uolj that Webber needs to be more prudent about what he says publically - mainly because ANYTHING he says will be twisted by someone to reflect negatively.
Are you really trying to maintain that it is unfair to attribute something to someone unless that person explicitly makes a statement to that effect. That would be absurd.

People make inferences every day. Courts of law routinely make inferences based on what is said (and hold on, this may be a shocker) what is not said. People are routinely sent to jail or found liable based on such (circumstantial) evidence.

To require an explicit and positive statement is absurd. Say someone asks me "who do you love in your family," and I answer "my mom" and fail to mention my dad. The person asks again and I say, "hold on, let me think about it." Then again, I say, "I love my mom." Would it be out of line to think that I don't love my dad. According to your argument it would be.

With regard to Webber and Miller this is exactly what happened. Chris said, "I only want to play with hard workers" (or something like that, I can't remember).

He is then asked who the hard workers are. He names most of his teammates. Then, he stops for several seconds and says "hold on..I want to make sure I didn't leave anyone out." He mulls over the names he previously mentioned, adds one or two more and says "that's it".

Yet, we are not allowed to assume that Chris Webber believes that Brad Miller is not a hard worker. According to your logic, we could only make such an "assumption" if Chris Webber comes out and explicitly says that Brad Miller is not a hard worker. (Even if Chris really believed that Miller didn't work hard, he is not stupid enough to make such an explicit statement).
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#26
salscamperini said:
Are you really trying to maintain that it is unfair to attribute something to someone unless that person explicitly makes a statement to that effect. That would be absurd.

People make inferences every day. Courts of law routinely make inferences based on what is said (and hold on, this may be a shocker) what is not said. People are routinely sent to jail or found liable based on such (circumstantial) evidence.

To require an explicit and positive statement is absurd. Say someone asks me "who do you love in your family," and I answer "my mom" and fail to mention my dad. The person asks again and I say, "hold on, let me think about it." Then again, I say, "I love my mom." Would it be out of line to think that I don't love my dad. According to your argument it would be...
You seem to mean well, but your argument is based on fallacious reasoning. If someone does not, in fact, explicitly say something, you can only make an educated guess about whether or not they actually meant it if you can accurately guess their intent. One of the things that the people who decry Voisin's editorial are trying to get across is that Voisin is really in no position to accurately gague Webber's intent, because she has no actual access to Webber. She can therefore only repeat what she's heard second (or even third) hand, and project her own biases into her column and try to spin it as "truth." And quite frankly, Voisin's bias is so well known as to not be taken seriously by many, myself included.
 
#27
Mr. S£im Citrus said:
If someone does not, in fact, explicitly say something, you can only make an educated guess about whether or not they actually meant it if you can accurately guess their intent.


Ok, well in my example, I would be more than 99% sure that I purposefully left out my dad. Especially since there are only 2 parents in my family (as tehre are only 8-9 core members of the Kings team) and I stopped to reflect on my initial statement to make sure I didn't inadvertently leave anyone out (Webber did the same thing in his statement).

So while you're right that "you can only make an educated guess," my point is that such guesses are made (and acted upon) all the time and with great results/success.

99% accuracy is good enough for me. (actually, much less than 99% is good enough for me, especially when someone has a history or pattern of similar behavior).

Mr. S£im Citrus said:
One of the things that the people who decry Voisin's editorial are trying to get across is that Voisin is really in no position to accurately gague Webber's intent, because she has no actual access to Webber. She can therefore only repeat what she's heard second (or even third) hand, and project her own biases into her column and try to spin it as "truth." And quite frankly, Voisin's bias is so well known as to not be taken seriously by many, myself included.
Well, here you are doing exactly the same thing. Has Voison ever come out and explicitly said "I am biased against Chris Webber." I don't think she has, so based on earlier reasoning none of you can honestly say that Voison has it out for Webb. You can only make an "educated guess" to that effect.

Why is it ok for you all to make an "educated guess" with respect to Vioson, but it is not ok for us to make an "educated guess" with respect to Webb?
 
Last edited:
#28
salscamperini said:
To require an explicit and positive statement is absurd. Say someone asks me "who do you love in your family," and I answer "my mom" and fail to mention my dad. The person asks again and I say, "hold on, let me think about it." Then again, I say, "I love my mom." Would it be out of line to think that I don't love my dad. According to your argument it would be.
It would be out of line to state that you don't love your dad. Definitely. It would be ok to say that it was inferred that you don't love your dad, but that is very different.

Voisin's quote is, "Miller, the target of much of Webber's offseason sniping, refuses to respond but privately is thought to be miffed." That states that Miller was the target of much of Webber's offseason sniping. There is nothing in her statement that mentions that the statement is based completely on her own inferences into what Webber said.

Now I actually believe that Webber was probably purposefully singling out Miller. But notice how I said "believe" and "probably". I don't know this, it is not a fact, and it is not public record. It is simply my own inferrence based on Webber's interview.


I actually believe that this is one of the biggest faults we as humans have. Why do you think a message that gets relayed through several different people always ends up coming out differently on the other side? Because it is so easy to change the meaning of something slightly based on our own filters or biases. It is human nature, but I think journalists especially have a responsibility to do their best to avoid it.
 
#29
uolj said:
It would be out of line to state that you don't love your dad. Definitely. It would be ok to say that it was inferred that you don't love your dad, but that is very different. Voisin's quote is, "Miller, the target of much of Webber's offseason sniping, refuses to respond but privately is thought to be miffed." That states that Miller was the target of much of Webber's offseason sniping. There is nothing in her statement that mentions that the statement is based completely on her own inferences into what Webber said.
Ok, well I see that as splitting hairs. I guess Voison could have stated, "I and many other people infer that 'Miller, the target of much of Webber's offseason sniping...'"

I think that would be ridiculous, and go against the practices of nearly every human being on the planet.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#30
salscamperini said:
Ok, well in my example, I would be more than 99% sure that I purposefully left out my dad. Especially since there are only 2 parents in my family (as tehre are only 8-9 core members of the Kings team) and I stopped to reflect on my initial statement to make sure I didn't inadvertently leave anyone out (Webber did the same thing in his statement)...
Maybe you would; I wouldn't. Maybe your dad wasn't around when you grew up, so you didn't mention him because you don't actually love him... Or maybe you were a "momma's boy" growing up and your dad was emotionally distant (kind of like an Eric/Red Foreman dynamic), so you simply don't think about your dad as immediately as you do about your mom... Or maybe your dad was in the navy, and he simply wasn't around very much to help raise you, so you don't immediately think about him when asked... Or maybe your mom remarried, and you just don't think of your step-dad like a father...

My only point is that, if I didn't know you, I'd be in no position to guess why you forgot to mention your dad, and wouldn't presume to.

salscamperini said:
... So while you're right that "you can only make an educated guess," my point is that such guesses are made (and acted upon) all the time and with great results/success...
Perhaps by legal experts and other trained professionals, but not by editorial columnists in general, and not by Ailene Voisin in particular; she's batting closer to .133 than the 99% accuracy that you would prefer to portray.