Who didn't they abuse in the first half?He was -11 in 9 minutes.
He was a contributor to the first half deficit absolutely.
Abu, freeman, and Anya abused him.
Who didn't they abuse in the first half?He was -11 in 9 minutes.
He was a contributor to the first half deficit absolutely.
Abu, freeman, and Anya abused him.
So what is your objection?Who didn't they abuse in the first half?
He was -11 in 9 minutes.
He was a contributor to the first half deficit absolutely.
Abu, freeman, and Anya abused him.
I blame them all.Did Mike Young play those same the same 5 minutes Maia played in the 1st half? Artis as well? I take it they were the same minus that Maia was in the first 5 minutes of the first half.
If you had to allocate blame for the first half deficit, biggest offender to least contributor, how would you lay out the blame?
I just can't fathom why this is so hard to understand. He didn't play a lot, but when he did he was awful. He not only played poorly but he got himself into foul trouble with two fouls in the first half which almost always sends a guy to the bench for the rest of the half and then when he came back in in the second half his play didn't get any better and he picked up another foul.
Good god, is there really someone who cannot understand why he didn't play more than 9 minutes?
Question - how many fouls do you get in a game? - Are you disqualified after three?
If it was only about one game, I would not be posting this. Protes posted and I have seen, at the first sign of trouble Jamie takes Maia out, then goes to Odoba and then (maybe Luther) finally just plays Jeter. Sometimes, Maia never returns (although he did get to return and be effective in the second half against BC). Harve just posted about Maia being ineffective in recent games and being so physically limited.
Like I said, I have seen this act before. I fear Jamie is moving to a front line of Young, Jeter and Artis. That puts our three best players on the floor together, but in my opinion, does not result in our best team.
No, you aren't. But when you play nine minutes and pick up three fouls because you are completely overmatched you really shouldn't expect more playing time. If in that nine minutes you didn't even take a shot let alone score a point you really shouldn't expect more playing time when your team needs to score a lot of points as fast as possible. When you aren't contributing anything at all in the minutes that you do play you generally don't get more playing time.
However I do apologize. I guess there really is someone who can't understand this.
Not that night.Maia would have given us a better chance to win. Nobody said we would have won.
Just for the record - When Maia first exited in the 1st half the score was Pitt 4 NC ST 12 - We were down 8.
When Maia returned in the 1st half the score was Pitt 11 NC ST 30 - We were down 19
Just for the record, the first time Maia played we were a minus 8. The second time he played we were a minus 5. And the third time he played we were a plus 2. That's a total of minus 11 over 9 minutes.
I could have sworn someone already posted that. Hmmm. I wonder who?
"My math" describes the actual facts of what happened in the game. The fact that you'd like us all to ignore that doesn't mean that "my math" was wrong, it means that "my math" makes the exact opposite point that you want "the math" to make.
If we play at a minus 11 over 9 minutes pace for the whole game, what will the final outcome be?
It's obvious .I am perfectly willing to let the readers of these two post decide which of us has presented a more meaningful frame of what the facts actually represent