Apr 6th 2010 5:49PM Allow me to address the laundry list of gratuitous errors, exaggerations, and outright falsehoods that plague your obviously unresearched article.
1) You clearly have zero knowledge of Houston's salary cap situation, and likely next to nothing of the league's CBA. What, you think just because McGrady's $23 million contract expires that Houston suddenly has $23 million in cap space? Houston's situation before the trade would have allowed them somewhere in the neighborhood of $13 million in cap space, and that's assuming that they don't resign restricted free agents Luis Scola and Kyle Lowry. Those two are surefire signings unless they're offered something entirely unreasonable by a desperate team. So, after resigning Scola and Lowry (assume that's it's on the low end of about $10 million/yr for the two combined) Houston would be looking at a whopping $3-$4 million of cap space. I don't think any of those big names you're talking about are taking a pay cut of that magnitude just to play next to Yao.
3) Kevin Martin, for all your concern over his 43% shooting, is still one of the most efficient offensive players in league. His true shooting percentage sits at 58% on the year, and his career rate 59.8% is currently 4th among active players, astounding for a shooting guard. Injuries are a concern, yes, but a consistent scorer at the 2 spot has been a glaring deficiency for the team for the last two seasons.
4) The Rockets were never getting David Lee, and imagining a frontcourt comprised of two power forwards and a center is idiotic at best. You'd start Luis Scola at small forward instead of Ariza or Battier? Hilarious.
5) Matt Barnes a better fit than Kevin Martin? Barnes is a mediocre offensive player at best. The "need" for his defensive capabilities is but a myth propagated by the idea that the Rockets' defense has fallen off for any other reason than missing a 7'6" basket protector.
6) Saying that if Houston couldn't win with McGrady in his prime makes as much sense as saying the Lakers couldn't win with Kobe in his prime. After Shaq left, L.A. floundered for so many seasons for one simple reason: Kobe had an atrocious supporting cast. So it was for the Rockets as well. I mean, against the Mavericks in '05, the team's third option was Jim Jackson. In '07 and '08, it was Rafer Alston. And the rosters went downhill from there. Minus McGrady and with competent role players like Scola, Landry, Artest and Brooks, this team had the talent to move forward in the playoffs. Add Yao Ming back into the picture against the Lakers last year, we very well may have had an upset.
7) Just because you saw some highlight-reel clips of Carl Landry swatting shots into the third row and saving the Rockets win in Utah in the '08 playoffs doesn't mean he was a good defensive player. It's a stretch to even say he was an adequate defensive player. He has the capability, but he's certainly nowhere near "good."
Feb 14th 2008 4:41PM A few things...
1) Haste is still a very lackluster stat for Affliction.
2) Your haste formula is wrong. 100% haste goes to 50% cast time; that is, 1570 haste rating would send your Shadow Bolt down to 1.25 seconds and your GCD to 0.75 seconds (though capped at 1.0). So, to get your GCD to 1.0 seconds, you effectively need 66.7% haste or 1047 haste rating. Here's the formula:
(cast time) / (1 + ((0.01 * haste) / 15.7))
Nov 15th 2007 5:01PM Ahh, silly me, here I was thinking we were talking about the games unit since the original article on WoW Insider is about their videogame numbers, not the company numbers. I guess I need to spell things out for some people on occasion.
It's okay, implications can be hard to follow over teh Intarwebz.
Nov 15th 2007 4:14PM @18
Here's a nice news article from '05 for you: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/01/business/vivendi.php
See the quoted sections:
"The French telecommunications and media company, which flirted with bankruptcy in 2002 and wiped out the savings of thousands of private investors..."
"The success of the online game World of Warcraft helped turn an operating loss of €203 million in 2004 at the company's games unit into a profit of €41 million in 2005."
Do a little research yourself before you randomly claim things false.
Nov 15th 2007 3:16PM Fact: Vivendi was near bankruptcy before World of Warcraft.
Implication: World of Warcraft turned Vivendi around completely, making it actually a profitable company.
While World in Conflict probably did help Vivendi's profits, it has nowhere near the effect that World of Warcraft had, and continues to have on their profit margin. They no doubt make well over $1 billion per year on subscriptions to WoW, and while a significant chunk probably does go to game maintenance/development, there is also probably a significant chunk that comes in as pure profit. Combine that with package sales... yeaaaah.
Numbers are only going to go up with Wrath of the Lich King too. Tons of people say WoW's population is decreasing and while that may be true as far as actual players are concerned, their subscription count continues to increase.