|
Post by millring on Apr 7, 2008 14:47:12 GMT -5
....oh...and cars....blah, blah....mileage...epaul.......blah, blah.....
(just to show that I can remain on topic)
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 7, 2008 14:48:11 GMT -5
dang, I hate it when I start a new page when it means there's stuff that won't get read on the first page.
|
|
|
Post by david on Apr 7, 2008 14:58:32 GMT -5
Epaul, Being a frugal guy, this kind of report always makes me envious. City driving my Infiniti G35 causes me to replace the front brake pads every 25,000 miles! Tell me a little about those 300,000 miles. Is it mostly city stop and go or country and freeway. As to basketball, I think it is more than just the physical attributes of players that has improved. I think that the learned skill of the players has had the largest affect on the game's imporvement. Watch some of the old pro films and you will notice that only a few players could dribble with both left and right hands, few could shoot layups on both sides of the hoop and no one dribbled between the legs or behind the back. There is better ball control in junior high now and it is not due to physical attributes of those teens.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 7, 2008 15:06:33 GMT -5
As to basketball, I think it is more than just the physical attributes of players that has improved. I think that the learned skill of the players has had the largest affect on the game's imporvement. Watch some of the old pro films and you will notice that only a few players could dribble with both left and right hands, few could shoot layups on both sides of the hoop and no one dribbled between the legs or behind the back. There is better ball control in junior high now and it is not due to physical attributes of those teens. From your skills examples, it would appear that you think that I'm trying to assert that the peak happened forty years ago. I'm not. But I do think it probably happened more than twenty years ago.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Apr 7, 2008 15:10:44 GMT -5
Paul probably gets 25,000 miles between APPLICATIONS of his brakes!
|
|
|
Post by david on Apr 7, 2008 15:27:34 GMT -5
No, I think that the skill level is constantly improving. Going back 40 years is just more illustrative of that improvement than going back only 10 or 20 years. Wilt, Russel, Jabbar, Magic, Bird or even Jordan did not play against players with as high a skill level as is found today.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Apr 7, 2008 15:30:20 GMT -5
Frugal, david? Frugal guys can't buy an Infiniti G35. Now I'm the one who's envious.
Paul, my 84 Cavalier wagon went tits up at about 180k as I recall. (motor was shot) I abused that mother when I was starting my business.
|
|
|
Post by david on Apr 7, 2008 15:34:18 GMT -5
Evan, My car, my Goodalls and my JC Penny's Stafford Heavy T-shirts are my only indulgences!
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Apr 7, 2008 15:50:58 GMT -5
Ladies, show us your Goodalls!
(Wait, wasn't that "Underalls"?)
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Apr 7, 2008 16:00:49 GMT -5
I agree that sports of priviledge (tennis, golf, skiing) and access (hockey, swimming) are FAR from peaking -- for the reasons stated. But I think basketball has peaked. I wouldn't have to hand-pick a team (as Shannon). The Bird-led Celtics, the Johnson-led Lakers, the Thomas-led Pistons, the Jordan-led Bulls would all win today -- though they didn't cakewalk through their own eras. There is now no physical advantage that can be added to a player that has not already been ubiquitous in the league for decades. A "specimen" -- a superman -- may come along an lead the league again -- but note: It has not been a "specimen" that has been the NBA MVP for four years now -- and it won't (or shouldn't) be one this year either. Speaking of which, I'm a bit amazed that 6'0" Chris Paul is being mentioned as MVP in the same breath as 'specimens' LeBron, Kobe & Amari. He has stats, yes, but they are second shelf to the others. What has him in the running is the way he helps his team win games by how he runs the offense and defense. That's old school, for sure, and refreshing.
|
|
|
Post by loopysanchez on Apr 7, 2008 16:39:48 GMT -5
I agree that sports of priviledge (tennis, golf, skiing) and access (hockey, swimming) are FAR from peaking -- for the reasons stated. But I think basketball has peaked. I wouldn't have to hand-pick a team (as Shannon). The Bird-led Celtics, the Johnson-led Lakers, the Thomas-led Pistons, the Jordan-led Bulls would all win today -- though they didn't cakewalk through their own eras. There is now no physical advantage that can be added to a player that has not already been ubiquitous in the league for decades. A "specimen" -- a superman -- may come along an lead the league again -- but note: It has not been a "specimen" that has been the NBA MVP for four years now -- and it won't (or shouldn't) be one this year either. Take Bird, Thomas, or Jordan off their teams and I think they'd have zero championships between them, and while they'd still be somewhat competitive against today's players, they still wouldn't win any rings. The Bulls found out in 1994 how good they were without Jordan--He left to play minor league baseball, and Chicago got bounced in the 2nd round of the playoffs by New York--after having won the previous 3 championships with him at the helm. The next year, with Jordan back but still rusty, they lost to Orlando in the 2nd round. When Jordan finally came back for a full season in '96, the Bulls proceeded to win the next three championships in a row. I suspect a similar scenario if you substituted Zeke or Larry for MJ. And you're right, the last three seasons (Not four--Kevin Garnett, a prototypical NBA power foward, won it in '03-04), the league MVP has been either a short lanky white guy (Steve Nash x 2) or a tall, lanky white guy (Dirk Nowitzki). But they're the exception, and the fact that they're the exception is what makes them so alluring to the MVP voters in the media. Nash is a great leader on offense, but a huge liability on defense, and Nowitzki is an acknowledged choke artist when it comes to big games. But they are both white guys who excel in a black sport, so they get a bit too much credit from the media, who are also mostly white guys. Hate to say it, but it's true. Chris Paul (N.O. Hornets) has been putting up Nash-esque numbers for the last 2 seasons while playing better D, and he gets maybe a tenth of the media attention Nash has gotten. So to sum up, I would agree that the 3 teams you listed could compete for titles today with their full rosters, but take away their best player like you suggested, and they would be 6th to 8th seed playoff teams at best.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Apr 7, 2008 16:47:37 GMT -5
Boy, the thread creep can't decide where to go with this one.
I've got over 200,000 on both my Jeep and the minivan the boys are driving.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2008 16:54:37 GMT -5
I don't think you can make mention of Michael Jordan without recognizing the skills of Scotty Pippen. They were a double threat. When a team tried to key in on Michael, Scotty was there with the points. I think Michael's PPG would have been much lower had it not been for Scotty. There was a good reason for Scotty being part of the deal when it came time to resign Michael Jordan to the Bulls (Michael insisted they resign Scotty too).
I would also mention some other "all time" greats. Elgin Baylor, Julius Erving, Oscar Robinson, Pete Maravich, and who can forget "Spud" Webb. Even people who didn't watch basketball loved to watch Spud Webb.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2008 17:02:56 GMT -5
OK.... I'll try to get the thread back on track. I guess my 92 Grand Marquis had the most mileage of any vehicle I've owned to date. It was also a great ride. Very easy on my old bones, which are pretty high in the mileage department as well.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 7, 2008 17:12:50 GMT -5
Take Bird, Thomas, or Jordan off their teams and I think they'd have zero championships between them, and while they'd still be somewhat competitive against today's players, they still wouldn't win any rings. The Bulls found out in 1994 how good they were without Jordan--He left to play minor league baseball, and Chicago got bounced in the 2nd round of the playoffs by New York--after having won the previous 3 championships with him at the helm. The next year, with Jordan back but still rusty, they lost to Orlando in the 2nd round. When Jordan finally came back for a full season in '96, the Bulls proceeded to win the next three championships in a row. I suspect a similar scenario if you substituted Zeke or Larry for MJ. So to sum up, I would agree that the 3 teams you listed could compete for titles today with their full rosters, but take away their best player like you suggested, and they would be 6th to 8th seed playoff teams at best. Loopy, you ignorant slut. Actually, Jordan's Bulls were the weakest of the teams I mentioned. Pippen notwithstanding, the rest of the team wasn't of terrible consequence (Bill Cartright, anyone?) .....BUT..... If we're going to allow the hypothetical of dropping Bird, Johnson, Thomas (incidentally only one of two FABULOUS guards on that team) -- then to follow through, you would also have to remove the MVP of each of the current NBA teams to compare apples to apples. And if you did that, I still say that the Lakers and the Celtics and probably the Pistons would still have an equal shot at the NBA. So you're saying that, as a popularity contest, the MVP doesn't make the case. I can buy that. But I won't buy that four years makes it "an exception". Four years is starting to look "trend-like". But Paul very well may win the MVP -- that's where all the sentiment lies lately. And if so, the trend will continue to not be "specimen" players.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 7, 2008 17:36:05 GMT -5
I forgot to mention, the Cav is still on its original exhaust system. Chevy gave it a stainless steel pipe and muffler, and they are still good.
It is true that the Cav has had an easy life. The shortest trip it will take is eight miles, and most of its trips have been longer. And its miles are predominantly country miles. I don’t need to brake often or hard. Nor do I.
The engine is Chevy’s sturdy 2.2, which has been a good, if pedestrian, engine for GM. 80% of the time I use Mobil One. (and 20% of the time I don’t). I am not sure how much, if any, advantage synthetic oil confers in most situations, but I use it. I especially like it in the winter. While I try plug the car in when it is cold at home, at work that option isn’t available, and if it is twenty below, the car turns over easier if it has synthetic oil in it. (I also like to use synthetic oil in my lawnmower and rototiller. Small air-cooled engines can really appreciate a 20-50 synthetic, and as they usually only use a quart or less, why not splurge.)
I am tickled pink thinking about just how good, and how cheap, the Cav has been to own. It has been a good car. And a good car deserves praise.
By comparison, my Prizm/Toyota has been a little aggravating. It does run well and it gets good milage, but it was not designed for winter and it is built a little light.
The doors are prone to freezing shut whenever rain freezes or snow melts. I broke the door handle on it this winter just by pulling too hard (I didn’t think I was pulling that hard). I keep a rubber coated pry bar on hand for those six or seven times a year the doors freeze shut. (and I often have to hold the door shut by hand until the interior warms up enough to thaw out the latch mechanism -when I don’t have time to hose it down with WD-40). There is no mention of the door issues in Consumer Reports.
A brisk wind bent the trunk hinges. No mention in Consumer Reports about light hinges.
And the engine mounts of the Prizm/Corolla will readily pack with snow if you drive through snow drifts. Go through enough drifts, and you will think you are driving home from a demolition derby, in the losing car. The entire car roars and shakes something fierce and awful. The only solution is to wait for a thaw, which could take a couple months in Minnesota, or a long sit in heated building, or an hour with a propane heater blasting hot air under the car. It is a “live with it” design flaw. Again, no mention in Consumer Reports.
I have lived with the same generation Prizm/Corolla and Cavalier side by side for six years, and, outside of gas milage, the Chevy Cavalier is a better car. It is roomier, quieter, more stable in wind, ice, or snow. It has a better heater and a better defroster. And it has antilock brakes.
(In 1995 Chevy made dual airbags, daytime running lights, and anti-lock brakes standard equipment on the Cavalier. Toyota didn’t catch up and offer anti-lock brakes as standard equipment on the Corolla until 2003, eight years later. And on icy, snowy, Minnesota roads, anti-lock brakes are a great boon. They have saved my life, and the lives of many others.)
Paul
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 7, 2008 17:54:43 GMT -5
OK, I’ll admit it. While I am an overall fan of Consumer Reports, they do have some issues I take issue with. I believe they have car bias against domestics (and a fair amount of the bias is from their subscribers, who “filter” their car repair reports by anger and affection, subconsciously, no doubt. I know that lots of rusting, troublesome Hondas got great grades, while GM suffered from the subscribers' anger against a perceived national decline and corporate evilness)
When the new Cav was introduced in 1995, CR fell all over itself in praising the car. They stated, rightly, that is was roomier and more stable than the Civic, Corolla, and Nissan. And they liked the standard airbags, running lights, and antilock brakes. While most of the testers reported the seating position as comfortable, one short tester complained that the seats were too low and didn’t have enough support.
By the next year, the only part of that initial report to make it into the Consumer Report Cavalier capsule report was that one bitch from the short tester about the low seats. The superior roominess, quietness, and stability were never again mentioned, although Toyota didn’t offer as much leg, head, or hip room until 2003. And no mention was made of rusting Hondas until they started falling apart on the streets.
Chevy made a better compact than Honda or Toyota for at least five years. Judging by my wonder Cav, my chintzy Toyota, and my brother’s rusting and now dead and ruined ‘96 Honda Civic.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 7, 2008 20:01:59 GMT -5
......besides, Loopy, you are trying to convince a guy from Pacer country that today's NBA is superior to the NBA of twenty years ago.
George Mikan, Bob Cousy and three randomly chosen junior high school girls could beat the Indiana Pacers. Even with our star. Who is.....?
...and I'm talking about randomly chosen fifties era junior high girls -- the kind who are begging mom for a training bra and haven't yet had their first period, NOT MODERN era junior high girls who are already on a steady diet of birth-control pills and Boniva. OF COURSE the modern era girls could take on the Pacers. They wouldn't even need Mikan or Cousy.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 7, 2008 20:13:14 GMT -5
Larry Bird and Rick Mount both drove Cavaliers.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 7, 2008 20:15:14 GMT -5
And drove them damn well, I might add.
|
|