Hoosierhoopster

Yes I've read a couple of the Decker books, also good. Amazing how Baldacci can just pump these books out

It's just impossible for me to pick one favorite book. Started reading seriously around the 4th grade. When I read Don Quixote in the 6th grade my "reading" teacher told me I read too much. ha ha. Favorites include - Watership Down - The Hobbit / Lord of the Rings - Dune - The Game of Thrones books by the lazy bum who still hasn't finished The Winds of Winter (damn it) - The Dark Tower (Stephen King), this first book in the series is really good. The next 2 are also good, but then King goes into some kind of wacky self-love fest and ruins the series, actually inserts himself, personally, as the author into the end of the series. But The Dark Tower itself is outstanding. - Killer Angels, Michael Shaara - Donna Leon's Commissario Brunetti books - there are several, starting with Death at La Fenice, crime fiction set in Venice, her writing is fantastic - I could keep going but you get the point -- Wait I somehow left out the series I've been reading for the past year plus -- this (science fiction) series is really, really good: James S. A. Corey's Expanse books, starts with Leviathan Wakes. James S.A. Corey is actually a pen name for two authors. The series has been nominated for best series Hugo award. For any of you who like sci fi, these books (started in 2012 or so) are awesome. And Amazon has an original Expanse series show which just finished season 2, really well done.

The Baldacci books I like are the Will Robie series (The Innocent, book 1) and the John Puller series.

I grew up on the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Still hold up well.

Have you read Michael Shaara's Killer Angels? Battle of Gettysburg, but as a compelling action story, fantastic book.

Yeah sorry if that came across as argumentative, was just surprised but now I see what you're saying -- and you're very much right that the Thunder need to get it together. I think, but am not yet sure, that they'll turn the proverbial corner by figuring out how to play together the full game and not just the first half, and otherwise iron out how to work together down the stretch. I've actually liked Melo's effort to back off being so ball dominant and contribute more on a team effort basis. All three of them seem to still be working on figuring that out -- I don't like seeing Westbrook continue to jack up 3's and long 2's when he has PG and Melo with him.

Yeah this is going to be a problem. The Vogel firing and going with McMillan is going to continue to hurt the P's. I hope they replace him after this season, definitely good young talent on this team -- and wouldn't sweat the L's when the P's are playing well and then give up leads, sign of a young team, and a newly constructed team. That should take care of itself with time, at least if they get past the problems with McMillan's coaching.

Really, couldn't be further off. Anthony was 4-17, to go along with Westbrook's 7-21. They all shot poorly and last I checked 4-17 is worse than 4-16. PG was -2 on the night. Carmelo was -21. Did you actually watch the game? The Thunder were up 25-10 and PG was 2-4 for 6 points in the first quarter, they were dominating, then they went to sleep and all played poorly and down to the lowly Kings. In the prior game, PG finished 10-21 for the game high of 27 points, to go with 5 boards and 3 steals. Melo was kicked out of the game on a BS call, finished with 15 (and -9). Same deal in the L to the Celtics. The Thunder were up 18, then they went to sleep. It's a recurring theme and one they have to address. Won the first quarter 31-18, and the 2nd 24-19. Lost the second half badly.But PG was 9-20 for 25 (again, game high), 10 rebounds in his double-double. Melo the clear #2, what? Melo was 3-17 for 10 points in that game and the reason why they lost.

Agree on Bimmers, and they're notoriously problematic after about 80,000 miles. I've had a 3 and 5-series, both were fine for about 50k miles and then everything went downhill fast (not in a good way). CPO is a great way to go especially with the Four Rings, with the extended CPO warranty. They tend to have electronics issues down the road, so the warranty coverage is a real plus. I think they compare very well, from a driving perspective, with the newer Mercs -- which are all now turbo. I got my C63 largely because it was the last naturally aspirated 6.2 liter 8, I love the sound and immediate torque of the naturally aspirated big liter engine -- but while I tuned by EC chip, you can get a much bigger tune out of a turbo . So if you want that performance to go along with your comfortable ride, you can always tune a turbo Four Rings or AMG turbo, which will get you the performance fast -- though it can void warranty, so you'll want a hand-held so you can revert back to normal setting when you take the car in..... (for my car, I tuned the chip and added an LSD (limited slip differential) along with some carbon fiber upgrades, now have about 550 hp and 470 lb foot torque, does 0-60 in 3.4 clocked with tire pressure and gas load low -- but a new c63-S turbo tuned right would leave me behind)

The Four Rings are a nice ride for sure. On the high end, the RS7 is crazy fast. They don't appear to be making the RS5 this year, that's a racy coupe, but the S5 is a fun drive -- colleague of mine had one. If you're looking at buying and not leasing though, Four Rings are ridiculous to maintain, once you're out of warranty, it's like you're sending the car to college. Mercs aren't cheap upkeep either, but they tend to maintain better. Can't go wrong either way though, Four Rings are sweet.

I didn't mean to downplay that it was a good win, just saying I don't think it's a barometer W -- The Cavs have lost 4 straight, they are 3-5. They just lost at home to the Knicks by 19. The simple fact is that Cleveland is playing poorly right now. That's not a slight to the P's -- a road W is a road W -- but it's not a barometer W.

Houston needed it! Interesting, after Katrina, New Orleans won the Super Bowl. After Harvey, Houston wins the World Series. Should we hope for a flood in Bloomington?

Hmm. How on Earth do you assess a player while ignoring everything he's done? Of course it's relevant! I think what you're doing is the opposite -- you looked at one off year (which came after a strong year, and then with Bird's ridiculous roster moves, including Teague), and ignored everything he did before, in order to label him as maybe a top 15 player, which flies in the face of - yes, all he's done. You're trying to paint him based on an off year -- and you're also just disregarding what he did March forward, including the playoffs. That doesn't work. Lol at the Fouls comment. No, I didn't get upset -- rather, the stats Fouls posted were that one year, only, and as I recall, FW_Hoosier then pointed that out, and pointed out several of his other stats including some I posted above, and then no one responded because there wasn't a response that could deny what FW pointed out. You know I've posted who I consider top before, right? Didn't I say that the last time you asked me to post them again? Fwiw, I'm not sure I'd say he's a clear top 10 this year, I think he's in the 9-12 range. Gotta run (Go Astros!), but we can pick this up later --

That's great -- particularly because both were off early, Vic was like 2-10, and then they turned it around. Great to see Vic doing so well. On the flip side, this also isn't a barometer game. Cavs have lost something like 3 straight home games (and to bad teams), I think the longest in LeBron's career. Things are not kosher in Cleveland right now

Now that sounds good! The Dark Side - Benz, is calling to you

Straw man. You can't dismiss his obvious top 10-15 stats, so you come back with this. First of all, again, you ignore the stats I posted on his year AFTER the injury. He was outstanding. And yes, what he did in the years leading up to the injury are obviously relevant to what he's done. Then he did it immediately again after the injury. The ONLY bad year for him was last year -- and he, again, as he has every single year of his career, excluding the year he lost to injury, raised his PPG. You can list whoever you want, that doesn't change anything. Your continuing attempts to minimize and disregard don't change a thing, man.

Another? He's 8-17 (4-8 from 3), tell me how that's bad. What is with you guys? Oh yeah, it's also at the Bucks, and it's now 93-66. What a slacker.

Oh man, come on KoB. You know I appreciate your thoughts and posts, but what is the deal with your revisionist and continuing downgrading of PG? Now he's supposedly top 20, "maybe top 15, and nationally, very few would agree with my view of PG, locally and anywhere inbetween? First, no one considers PG top 20, "maybe top 15." He is considered by everyone top 15 or better. Geez, when espn did their silly ranking and had him top 13 you came back pointing that out as to why he wasn't top 10. I am going to say this again, whether he's top 10 or top 15 he's one of the best players in the NBA, a "superstar," according to basically everyone besides you. And it is clearly borne out by his stats and what he did for the Pacers, for years, including the year after his injury. Again, those stats include: In 2015-16, after his injury, 7th in the League in defensive win shares, 10th in ppg, 6th in 3-point FGs, and 11th in VORP. Maybe top 20, seriously? Come on. Yes, he had a falloff year last year, no question, but of course that came with a stupid roster overhaul including the loss of GH. The Teague experiment was a clear failure. And you're just ignoring what PG did from March 1 forward last year and into the playoffs. He still finished 15th overall in PPG, and 12th in 3-point FGs, and 15th in steals. Then there's what he did with the Pacers, when despite your continuing attempts to minimize his contributions, he was the lead star against LeBron's NC winning teams. Leading up to and during that time, he was 1 1st overall in defensive win shares (2012-13), 2nd overall in defensive win shares (2013-14), 12th in PPG (2013-14), 10th in 3-point FG's (2012-13), 13th in 3-point FGs (2013-14), 9th in VORP (2012-13 and 2013-14), and 6th and 4th in steals (2012-13 and 2013-14). Clearly not elite? Right. You want to name 15 other players during that time period with matching or better stats? He is, hands down, one of the best players in the League, whether you like him or not. And he did all that with the Pacers, and as one of the best two-way players in the League - again, as recognized by everyone except you. And no, I'm not the one who's biased here, I'm not coloring my view of PG because of how badly Larry Bird screwed the pooch on that EC contending team and then fired Vogel -- you think that was a good move?? I really don't get why you are so hell bent on dismissing everything that PG did for the Pacers and what his numbers obviously show and how well regarded, as a superstar, he is throughout the NBA. But the P's have moved on, and their early play, with Vic -- who I will always root for -- is looking great, so why not just enjoy that instead of lambasting PG and my posts about him? BTW, other than our back and forth on PG, which always seems to escalate, I really enjoy your posts. You bring a lot of knowledge and good thoughts. Meanwhile - nice W for the P's tonight over Sacto And PG is leading the Thunder right now over a very good Bucks team, 85 - 64 in the 3d, PG with 20 and +16 (both team highs)

I don't know about hyperbolic, but no, Robinson is not better than Parker, aged or not. Turner may get there, but that remains to be seen. Leanord is obviously one the League's best, on both ends. Turner was a no show in the playoffs. I get the feeling that every time I post about the Pacers it's taken as some kind of afront, and there has to be a response saying I'm hyperbolic or whatever. That's ok, but I'm not intending to hate on the P's (Larry, yes, P's, no), all I'm saying is we are obviously very early into the 82 game season, and a W over the Spurs, missing those 2, at this point does not signal some fantastic triumph. (And they were down by 9 with under 7 minutes to go.) How about the Pistons? Wins at GS and at Clippers. Again, it's early. Meanwhile, GS is just 4-3, Cleveland is 3-4, etc. You know it's extremely early to try to draw conclusions on how good the P's are.

Fouls, what? There is no reason, whatsoever, to say PG is starting a downswing. He's in the prime of his career, and for the next several years. Comparing Vic and Sabonis -- and ESPECIALLY after a few early games and ignoring all of last season -- is completely baseless. Those players are on different planets, at this point. On switching coaches, Pop is worth 10 wins, no question. He's the best coach in the NBA. But even that doesn't get you to add 10 wins to the Pacers win column vs. last season. Do you really think that a few games in, and the Pacers being at 3-3, they're capable of winning North of 50 games?? No way, not happening, no matter who the coach is. If I'm wrong on that I will GLADLY eat crow, but that' pure fantasy. On a related note, though, look at what Vogel is doing in Orlando right now. He's killing it. He's playing up tempo, and thriving. And Bird, for reasons that are at best illogical, and at worst plain stupid, fired him for an assistant coach who has never been an uptempo coach and never was as successful as Vogel was leading the Pacers. I wonder where the Pacers would be if Larry Legend wasn't mindlessly firing his coach and losing his franchise player, along with others. Yes, the rosters are that much different. I'm not sure how much you follow the NBA, but the Pacers roster and the Spurs roster are not on equal footing. It's certainly possible that Vic and Sabonis will demonstrate that they are much better than everyone thought, right now. I hope so, that would be great for the Pacers. But we're 6 games into the regular season. The word premature comes to mind.

Kawhi and Parker ten times what Turner and Robinson bring, but OK! I'm guessing you don't really think the Pacers are on the Spurs level. All I'm saying is a little perspective, nice win, but not one to say indicates that the P's are suddenly some kind of contending team. Here's to hoping they get there. Definitely some nice early showings.

That's awesome.

Completely fair. I don't agree (at all) with those who think PG somehow didn't give great effort while a Pacer, but he clearly wanted out after things deteriorated and Bird made all those trades and roster moves. I've been a Pacers fan since the 80s -- I hope they grow back into a true EC contender, and love seeing Vic prosper. I also hope PG finds his place and thrives, either in OKC or with the Lakers, if that's really where he wants to be.

Disagree, though Sabonis has looked pretty good early. If he can keep up that play, and not disappear like he did just last season, that will be a nice benefit to the Ps.

Sure, and it's early. Parker of course also is not currently playing with the Spurs. Not saying it wasn't a nice come back W for the P's, but it's not a signature win, it's an early season win with the Spurs missing two key players, and one of the top 3-5 players in the League.