Tyler Thornton's offense

[greybeard]

In addition to Tommy's observations, I remarked in another thread that Seth seems to score a lot less than usual when he's teamed with Tyler (and Nolan scored a lot less than usual when he was teamed with Tyler). So not only is Tyler just passing the ball around the perimeter most of the time, he's apparently not giving it to his wing guard in a good position to get anything going.

Like Steve Blake, Tyler is the product of high-end, Catholic league basketball--he gives it up easily to a guy whom he sees as having effective passing opportunities. Maybe the guys you mention are/were wedded to catching with a think-score-first mentality, even when that option plainly is not an option. Maybe Tyler's talent as a leader is to demand that such players start to get it--that Duke needs a team identity, a team approach to scoring the ball in lieu of too much reliance on individual riffs. Maybe that is precisely why K puts him in, because he is a strong leader who will take the shoot-first option off the table and also lead by example--to give it up so that someone else, who is thinking pass- first, will keep the ball moving until Duke gets what it wants, a player with an excellent chance to score the ball and does so as a team. Works for me, and for the Gonzaga team that he lead in precisely that fashion and took them pretty darn far.

[Kedsy]

Maybe the guys you mention are/were wedded to catching with a think-score-first mentality, even when that option plainly is not an option. Maybe Tyler's talent as a leader is to demand that such players start to get it--that Duke needs a team identity, a team approach to scoring the ball in lieu of too much reliance on individual riffs. Maybe that is precisely why K puts him in, because he is a strong leader who will take the shoot-first option off the table and also lead by example--to give it up so that someone else, who is thinking pass- first, will keep the ball moving until Duke gets what it wants, a player with an excellent chance to score the ball and does so as a team.

Well, maybe. Except "the guys [I] mention" are Seth Curry and Nolan Smith. Do you really think that last season Coach K inserted freshman Tyler Thornton into the lineup to "demand" that senior ACC POY Nolan Smith "start to get it"? Really?

[greybeard]

Yes, absolutely. No other reason to put him in.

As I said his first season at Duke, Tyler Thorton is the closest thing that Duke has had to Tommy Amaker since, well, it had Tommy Amaker. Thorton can and does organize and lead on offense, get teammates to coallese on a team-approach to wscoring. Asserting control in that fashion is what Thorton does extremely, extremely well. That's a principal reason he was recruited, why he was terrifically successful in leaing the fabled Gonzaga program in DC, and why he has been terrific this season and often relied on by KI in games that are close in the second half, especially down the stretch. So, you put Tyler on the floor as a freshman, that is what he is expected to do--to prevent quick shots in lieu of a team search for a better one, or even a worse one because team involvement and cohession and occupying the ball are deemed important at that time.


Thorton is also Amaker on defense. He mans up aggressively and with purpose on the point, and prevents the point from being effect. Amaker stayed "in front of his guy" much more consistently than Thorton, but Thorton is terrific in disrupting offensive initiation by the point. How, by preventing them from doing what they want, how they want, with the timing they want, and turning them over. You prevent someone with the ball from dribbling on the path that they prefer, you keep them from getting to the area of the court, or more particularly, the precise place on the court that they want, that they are comfortable in, or if they get there they have had to work hard and dribble and move in unfamiliar ways, arrive with a different step configuration, catch it off the bounce differently, and their whole world has changed. You don't have to "lock someone down" to significantly diminish what he contributes offensively. Thorton does that to folks. He also does similar things as an off the ball defender, He orients himself in a way that prevents a player with the ball from going where he wants with it or risk losing the ball, if the guy goes anyway, he has a devil (sorry I couldn't help myself) getting to where he wants, often starts to lose dominion of how and where a particular bouncew is made, and then is like the prey on the savanna who takes a wobblely step and becomes dinner shortly. Then wehn the ball is vulnerable, becomes loose, is in the air or on the floor and is up for grabs. Thorton is in the middle of tying to get it, and people come out of knowing that "they have been in it" when the ball is turned over or not.

That is who Tommy, oops, Tyler Thorton is and that is what he is sent in to do. Otherwise, go with Cook, no?

[Kedsy]

Yes, absolutely. No other reason to put him in.

As I said his first season at Duke, Tyler Thorton is the closest thing that Duke has had to Tommy Amaker since, well, it had Tommy Amaker. Thorton can and does organize and lead on offense, get teammates to coallese on a team-approach to wscoring. Asserting control in that fashion is what Thorton does extremely, extremely well. That's a principal reason he was recruited, why he was terrifically successful in leaing the fabled Gonzaga program in DC, and why he has been terrific this season and often relied on by KI in games that are close in the second half, especially down the stretch. So, you put Tyler on the floor as a freshman, that is what he is expected to do--to prevent quick shots in lieu of a team search for a better one, or even a worse one because team involvement and cohession and occupying the ball are deemed important at that time.


Thorton is also Amaker on defense. He mans up aggressively and with purpose on the point, and prevents the point from being effect. Amaker stayed "in front of his guy" much more consistently than Thorton, but Thorton is terrific in disrupting offensive initiation by the point. How, by preventing them from doing what they want, how they want, with the timing they want, and turning them over. You prevent someone with the ball from dribbling on the path that they prefer, you keep them from getting to the area of the court, or more particularly, the precise place on the court that they want, that they are comfortable in, or if they get there they have had to work hard and dribble and move in unfamiliar ways, arrive with a different step configuration, catch it off the bounce differently, and their whole world has changed. You don't have to "lock someone down" to significantly diminish what he contributes offensively. Thorton does that to folks. He also does similar things as an off the ball defender, He orients himself in a way that prevents a player with the ball from going where he wants with it or risk losing the ball, if the guy goes anyway, he has a devil (sorry I couldn't help myself) getting to where he wants, often starts to lose dominion of how and where a particular bouncew is made, and then is like the prey on the savanna who takes a wobblely step and becomes dinner shortly. Then wehn the ball is vulnerable, becomes loose, is in the air or on the floor and is up for grabs. Thorton is in the middle of tying to get it, and people come out of knowing that "they have been in it" when the ball is turned over or not.

That is who Tommy, oops, Tyler Thorton is and that is what he is sent in to do. Otherwise, go with Cook, no?

Well, first of all, it's Thornton, not "Thorton." You always do that. Second, and we can agree to disagree if you wish, but in my opinion Tyler is nowhere near the level of Tommy Amaker at passing, floor generalship, or especially on defense, where Mr. Amaker was a national defensive player of the year. Tyler is opportunistic and disruptive on defense, but that alone doesn't put him even close to Tommy's level.

Even on offense, Tyler is not close to Tommy. Amaker was much quicker and much better with the ball. He was a tremendous passer and made the offense click. Tyler does none of those things yet, as far as I can see. Being a good PG in high school, even if it's a great high school program, doesn't make you a good PG in college. The game comes at a completely different speed.

Tyler is sent in for his energy and defense (and, in my opinion, not at all for his offense). I completely disagree that there was "no other reason to put him in" other than to teach Nolan a lesson about shot selection.

[jimsumner]

Well, first of all, it's Thornton, not "Thorton." You always do that. Second, and we can agree to disagree if you wish, but in my opinion Tyler is nowhere near the level of Tommy Amaker at passing, floor generalship, or especially on defense, where Mr. Amaker was a national defensive player of the year. Tyler is opportunistic and disruptive on defense, but that alone doesn't put him even close to Tommy's level.

Even on offense, Tyler is not close to Tommy. Amaker was much quicker and much better with the ball. He was a tremendous passer and made the offense click. Tyler does none of those things yet, as far as I can see. Being a good PG in high school, even if it's a great high school program, doesn't make you a good PG in college. The game comes at a completely different speed.

Tyler is sent in for his energy and defense (and, in my opinion, not at all for his offense). I completely disagree that there was "no other reason to put him in" other than to teach Nolan a lesson about shot selection.

The idea that Tyler Thornton played last season to teach Nolan Smith lessons about shot selection is one of the more curious ideas I've seen on this board. Bonus points for originality.

[Wildcat]

-While i agree with much of your thoughts regarding Tyler's role thus far. He aint no Tommy Amakers. Tommy was a much better scorer, ball-handler, thinker and on-court leader. I think i liked him better than i did Bobby. Tommy was a "classic point-guard," just not explosive enough to make it at the next level. Big diffference my friend, big difference.

[jimsumner]

If our PG committee included a NPOY, future perennial NBA All-Star (Hill), or an NBA PG (Chalmers) and consensus 1st team All-American PG (Collins), I'd feel a little bit better about that. However, I don't think Curry is quite Hill, nor are Cook and Thornton Chalmers and Collins.

No one is saying this group is as accomplished as the aforementioned groups, although if we include Rivers in the equation, it might become so. But stylistically, there are similarities and that's what we're discussing.

FWIW, Hill won no NPOY awards and Collins was a consensus second-team All-America in 2009. He was more of a role player in the season referenced.

[Kedsy]

The idea that Tyler Thornton played last season to teach Nolan Smith lessons about shot selection is one of the more curious ideas I've seen on this board. Bonus points for originality.

I assume (and hope) you realize it wasn't my idea. I was disputing the notion.

[CDu]

Well, first of all, it's Thornton, not "Thorton." You always do that. Second, and we can agree to disagree if you wish, but in my opinion Tyler is nowhere near the level of Tommy Amaker at passing, floor generalship, or especially on defense, where Mr. Amaker was a national defensive player of the year. Tyler is opportunistic and disruptive on defense, but that alone doesn't put him even close to Tommy's level.

Even on offense, Tyler is not close to Tommy. Amaker was much quicker and much better with the ball. He was a tremendous passer and made the offense click. Tyler does none of those things yet, as far as I can see. Being a good PG in high school, even if it's a great high school program, doesn't make you a good PG in college. The game comes at a completely different speed.

Tyler is sent in for his energy and defense (and, in my opinion, not at all for his offense). I completely disagree that there was "no other reason to put him in" other than to teach Nolan a lesson about shot selection.

Completely agreed. Thornton was obviously a terrific high school PG. But the same is true of almost every PG who goes to a top-tier program. That doesn't make all of those guys good college PG. He's not in the same class as Amaker. Nor is he in the same class as Blake, who was actually a pretty good offensive player (MUCH better ballhandler and playmaker, more able to score as well).

And I absolutely agree that the idea that Thornton got any PT last year had anything to do with teaching Nolan Smith anything (let alone thinking that is the only possible explanation) is pretty ridiculous. I think Thornton played because there were times Dawkins and Curry were struggling mid-season and Coach K needed an alternative player to play defense and fill minutes. When those two were making an impact on the game, Thornton didn't really see the court.

[Steven43]

Well, first of all, it's Thornton, not "Thorton." You always do that. Second, and we can agree to disagree if you wish, but in my opinion Tyler is nowhere near the level of Tommy Amaker at passing, floor generalship, or especially on defense, where Mr. Amaker was a national defensive player of the year. Tyler is opportunistic and disruptive on defense, but that alone doesn't put him even close to Tommy's level.

Even on offense, Tyler is not close to Tommy. Amaker was much quicker and much better with the ball. He was a tremendous passer and made the offense click. Tyler does none of those things yet, as far as I can see. Being a good PG in high school, even if it's a great high school program, doesn't make you a good PG in college. The game comes at a completely different speed.

Tyler is sent in for his energy and defense (and, in my opinion, not at all for his offense). I completely disagree that there was "no other reason to put him in" other than to teach Nolan a lesson about shot selection.

I have to agree with Kedsey on this. I am starting to wonder if greybeard is watching the Duke games in a completely different way than I am experiencing them. From his building up of Zoubs as Bill Walton Jr. (I know he didn't actually say that--I'm exaggerating for effect) to now putting Tyler Thornton near the level of one of our greatest point guards. It's perplexing to say the least. I don't know if greybeard is imagining TT and Zoubs as doing/having done all of the things he says they are or if I'm somehow just missing it.

[DukieInBrasil]

No one is saying this group is as accomplished as the aforementioned groups, although if we include Rivers in the equation, it might become so. But stylistically, there are similarities and that's what we're discussing.
FWIW, Hill won no NPOY awards and Collins was a consensus second-team All-America in 2009. He was more of a role player in the season referenced.

Was the Collins referred to not the Kansas one? There was no Chalmers at Duke, mos def at KU. The PG by committee at KU was brought up earlier in this thread.
Grant Hill was the 94 ACC POY and the 93 DPOY. Several sites reference him as a NPOY, but don't specify which one.

[sagegrouse]

I have to agree with Kedsey on this. I am starting to wonder if greybeard is watching the Duke games in a completely different way than I am experiencing them. From his building up of Zoubs as Bill Walton Jr. (I know he didn't actually say that--I'm exaggerating for effect) to now putting Tyler Thornton near the level of one of our greatest point guards. It's perplexing to say the least. I don't know if greybeard is imagining TT and Zoubs as doing/having done all of the things he says they are or if I'm somehow just missing it.

Or maybe the "Venerable One" could offer to share what he is smoking, ingesting, or imbibing while watching the games. -- sage

[CDu]

Was the Collins referred to not the Kansas one? There was no Chalmers at Duke, mos def at KU. The PG by committee at KU was brought up earlier in this thread.
Grant Hill was the 94 ACC POY and the 93 DPOY. Several sites reference him as a NPOY, but don't specify which one.

I think that was a response to a combination of statements. The Collins being referred to was most definitely the KU Collins, who was a backup guard on their championship team (he and Aldrich played backup roles that year and emerged as stars later). The post it was in response to referenced several "PG by committee" examples, including 2008 KU and 1994 Duke. Although I'm not sure that 1994 Duke really counts as an example.

[jimsumner]

Was the Collins referred to not the Kansas one? There was no Chalmers at Duke, mos def at KU. The PG by committee at KU was brought up earlier in this thread.
Grant Hill was the 94 ACC POY and the 93 DPOY. Several sites reference him as a NPOY, but don't specify which one.

It was suggested that teams with a point-guard-by-committee approach don't play deep into March. Duke, 1994 and Kansas, 2008 were given as counter-examples. Two different examples.

Trust me, Grant Hill was never national player of the year. Purdue's Glenn Robinson won those awards in 1994, the voting for which took place prior to the NCAA regional title games.

Let me throw in some additional thoughts on why Tyler Thornton is an appealing option for Mike Krzyzewski. Thornton scores very high in two intangibles dear to Krzzyewski's heart.

The first is his ability to play physical defense. K loves pugnacious defenders. In this respect, Wojo is a better analog than Amaker, although I don't think TT is at the level of either. But Thornton is one of those nice guys who does a Hulk transformation when he gets on the floor. He bumps, trips, gets in the grille of opposing players as early and as often as he can.

Sometimes he gets beat, sometimes he fouls out. But he sets a tone that K wants set. The idea is that at some point in the game, the opposing PG is going to see Thornton coming at him and decide that he'd just as soon airmail a pass into the third row.

Thornton also has advanced verbal-communication skills. This is a focal point for K, on offense but especially on defense. In the post-games after a poor defensive effort by Duke, K will invariably cite some variation of "we didn't communicate well." Freshmen are amazed at how much this is emphasized in practices. Communicate-loudly, quickly, efficiently. Over and Over. And Over.

Thornton does this very well. He sees what needs to be seen and communicates that. Some people see what needs to be seen but don't communicate it. Some people communicate but communicate the wrong thing. Thornton does both. Think traffic cop.

In the long run, I think Cook has a higher ceiling than does Thornton. He might surpass him in the rotation next week, next month, next year. Maybe never. We shall see. But playing and starting Thornton right now is a rational allocation of resources.

IMO.

[JMarley50]

Let me throw in some additional thoughts on why Tyler Thornton is an appealing option for Mike Krzyzewski. Thornton scores very high in two intangibles dear to Krzzyewski's heart.

The first is his ability to play physical defense. K loves pugnacious defenders. In this respect, Wojo is a better analog than Amaker, although I don't think TT is at the level of either. But Thornton is one of those nice guys who does a Hulk transformation when he gets on the floor. He bumps, trips, gets in the grille of opposing players as early and as often as he can.

Sometimes he gets beat, sometimes he fouls out. But he sets a tone that K wants set. The idea is that at some point in the game, the opposing PG is going to see Thornton coming at him and decide that he'd just as soon airmail a pass into the third row.

Thornton also has advanced verbal-communication skills. This is a focal point for K, on offense but especially on defense. In the post-games after a poor defensive effort by Duke, K will invariably cite some variation of "we didn't communicate well." Freshmen are amazed at how much this is emphasized in practices. Communicate-loudly, quickly, efficiently. Over and Over. And Over.

Thornton does this very well. He sees what needs to be seen and communicates that. Some people see what needs to be seen but don't communicate it. Some people communicate but communicate the wrong thing. Thornton does both. Think traffic cop.

In the long run, I think Cook has a higher ceiling than does Thornton. He might surpass him in the rotation next week, next month, next year. Maybe never. We shall see. But playing and starting Thornton right now is a rational allocation of resources.

IMO.

Best description of TT ever!!

The question I think we should be debating is how does the team as a whole perform DEFENSIVELY with Tyler, vs. Seth or Quinn at PG. Team defense is the major concern right now. If we can't stop the other team it doesn't really matter who we run at point for offensive purposes, we won't last come March. I know statistically it would be tough to make an accurate assessment, due to varying opponent lineups, different game situations, and varying minutes. For me, based on eyes alone, it seems we are better defensively as a whole with Tyler at point rather than Seth. Up until the second half the other night I would have said we were better with Tyler than Quinn. But now I'm not so sure, they looked really good during the second half with Quinn. I would like to see a larger sample from Quinn before drawing that conclusion for certain. If Quinn proves he can lead the team as good defensively as Tyler can then I'd say he should be starting. He obviously has more offensive capabilities.

[sagegrouse]

It was suggested that teams with a point-guard-by-committee approach don't play deep into March. Duke, 1994 and Kansas, 2008 were given as counter-examples. Two different examples.

Trust me, Grant Hill was never national player of the year. Purdue's Glenn Robinson won those awards in 1994, the voting for which took place prior to the NCAA regional title games.

Let me throw in some additional thoughts on why Tyler Thornton is an appealing option for Mike Krzyzewski. Thornton scores very high in two intangibles dear to Krzzyewski's heart.

The first is his ability to play physical defense. K loves pugnacious defenders. In this respect, Wojo is a better analog than Amaker, although I don't think TT is at the level of either. But Thornton is one of those nice guys who does a Hulk transformation when he gets on the floor. He bumps, trips, gets in the grille of opposing players as early and as often as he can.

Sometimes he gets beat, sometimes he fouls out. But he sets a tone that K wants set. The idea is that at some point in the game, the opposing PG is going to see Thornton coming at him and decide that he'd just as soon airmail a pass into the third row.
Thornton also has advanced verbal-communication skills. This is a focal point for K, on offense but especially on defense. In the post-games after a poor defensive effort by Duke, K will invariably cite some variation of "we didn't communicate well." Freshmen are amazed at how much this is emphasized in practices. Communicate-loudly, quickly, efficiently. Over and Over. And Over.

Thornton does this very well. He sees what needs to be seen and communicates that. Some people see what needs to be seen but don't communicate it. Some people communicate but communicate the wrong thing. Thornton does both. Think traffic cop.

In the long run, I think Cook has a higher ceiling than does Thornton. He might surpass him in the rotation next week, next month, next year. Maybe never. We shall see. But playing and starting Thornton right now is a rational allocation of resources.

IMO.

Agreed on both points. WRT the boldfaced entry, remember the St. John's debacle in MSG last year? Duke appeared to be weak and unaggressive -- except Mr. Thornton. He played nine minutes before fouling out, and, as they say, he got his money's worth. He was also at the center of a near brawl. The next game he was in the starting lineup.

WRT the Duke Basketball Report, Tyler Thornton is the gift that keeps on giving in terms of causing messages and clicks. You have a starter with some intangibles who is less gifted offensively than at least two players sitting on the bench while he is playing (take any two of Quinn, Dre, Seth, and Austin). His starting position will be challenged by any number of posters. And, in like circumstances, it would happen on any fan site for any team.

sagegrouse

[MChambers]

Let me throw in some additional thoughts on why Tyler Thornton is an appealing option for Mike Krzyzewski. Thornton scores very high in two intangibles dear to Krzzyewski's heart.

I can't believe that Jim made this mistake nor that the board's software didn't correct it!

I also love the explanation of why Tyler plays so much.

[airowe]

I've seen some posters on this thread saying that Tyler should not be starting because he's not one of Duke's five best players. I wonder why starting/not-starting is still looked at as a measure of how good a player is compared to the other players on his or her team.

The most-recent studies by both Ken Pomeroy and Luke Winn should be enough to put that one to bed: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...=si_topstories

I won't be surprised if they aren't enough though, as Pomeroy's obliteration of FG% as a useful stat is still somehow not sinkibg in to otherwise intelligent people. http://www.basketballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=610

[greybeard]

I can't spell, never could, and can get downright dyslexic when engrossed in thought.

I said "the closest thing" to Tommy Amaker since Amaker left, not that he was Tommy Amaker. I have explained why. If anyone has other choices and makes the case for him, it would be fun to reflect.

If I said that Tyler was sent in to "teach" Nolan anything I misaspoke, but I don't think that I said or came close to implying it. It is not what I think.

I think Tyler's job when he is sent in on offense is to create team play. When he was a freshman, he projected subtley. What others might see as a meaningless pass because it does not create a scoring chance, or improve the scoring possibilities of the receiver, I see as a statement--"what's the rush, we can get that shot (whatever it is that the receiver might have in mind if Tyler was looking only to throw the ball to someone in a position to attack) later, let's see what develops if we take our time, move the ball, create some space in any of a variety of ways, you know, kick it like a team." You might think that I imputting too much influence on a "give it up early easily" pass, that seemingly does little more than make a connection with a teammate. To me, empasizing the value of those type connections, my making one yourself without so much as looking to do something special, is where the generosity, the syncghronicity of the game resides. Do some people not hear, do some refuse to listen,sure. If Nolan had been "going to quickly," and tried to make something happen upojn receiving such a pass from Thorton, would Thorton try to correct Nolan's choice? Please, that is what they pay K for.

On the other hand, this year, the tone is much different when Tyler is sent in to play the point. Now he takes command, he confidently without fan fair brings it up against pressure, refuses to be rushed, and I have to believe commands the show because it has been made explicit that that is what K wants. And the show that He leads is one of cohession, patience, and collective efforts to scoring the ball, in lieu of one on one play with a high screen thrown in. I think that he does a fine job of it. Oh, did I say that he was as good at it as Blake? If I did, boy, did I mispeak. Why, on a thread yesterday, I made it crystal clear that Blake is the best distributor of the ball that I have seen, with the exception of Magic and Bird, neither of whom played comparable rolls. Nope, I think that Blake as an old school lead guard is as good as it gets, is as good as I have seen. And, by stating that Blake and Thorton share the same roots and that Tyler was a terrific lead guard on a terrific Gonzaga high school team, I thought that that would evoke in many of you what the timeless passing game at its best is all about.

I have heard K praise Tyler for the offensive/defensive (really they are of one piece) strengths that I have been trying to put into words here. When I have heard him, it has been in after game interviews and K was constrained to putting out a few carefully framed thoughts in around 30 seconds. I think he loves the kid's game, which reminds me a lot of Amaker's. I shouldn't be surprised that, if asked in an after game interview, "what former player did Tyler remind him of," you'd get the same answer from K.

Another reason that K likes this kid is that he is cool at crunch time, and plays without fear when it is on him. He nailed a game winning three without hesitation, and was, in case anyone wasn't noticing, positioned to get the ball if Curry had nothing in the next one. So, K had Tyler on his short list to take the last shot when he nailed the split legged shot that won the next game. This is the same guy who everyone says can't score the ball. BTW, I have never tried it, but does splaying one's legs like Tyler had to necessarily throw off one's timing, release, and follow through on a shot, or did it serve to stablize Tyler's body from twisting and thus give him the best shot at making it. Guys make game winners from that distance on hurried shots all the time. Tyler took and hit two game winners in a row; was the second one just a matter of luck, as we all have assumed.

In sum. K loves to have this guy on the court in second halves of close games. he presents as a confident and strong leader of the offense during those times, he is the one guy on this team that you really don't want to battling for the ball against, and Duke is a much better defensive team when he is on the court than when he is not. And, since near everyone here seems to assume that the point guard position is key to most team's offensive success, and K likes having Tyler guarding the point when defense is most important, that is, late in tight games, and Duke has not lost one of those games yet, "You know how to whistle don't you, you just put your lips together and blow."

In keeping with the new me, I have had my say on this subject.

[Kedsy]

I can't spell, never could, and can get downright dyslexic when engrossed in thought.

...Thorton... Thorton...

...Thorton...

This has nothing to do with dyslexia. You have spelled Tyler's name wrong consistently since he was recruited. You mention him a lot, and I have never once seen you spell his name correctly, despite being corrected often on the boards. Nor have I ever seen you spell (or misspell) it any way other than you did above. At this point, I assume you do it on purpose, to get under people's skins.