Reply With Quote
That's always the excuse for being sloppy. You've spent hours in this thread alone, and yet you pretend it's not important enough for you to clearly lay out your thoughts in a concise manner. Instead, you slop it on because, in my opinion, you have no other option.
Not irrelevant, but not as indicative of a distributing PG as you make it out to be. If I was talking about two different people, then using the assists as an indicator would be fallacious based on my argument, however since the PG isn't variable, the assists have the same numerical value ergo a lower number vs a higher number, in light of the W/L and points is indeed notable. I don't expect you to get that though, because you're superficial understanding of the game won't allow it... yet.You brush off the assist totals as irrelevant when convenient but tried to get clever by highlighting his marginal assist decrease when pulling up his W/L splits. If you thought they were irrelevant, you wouldn't have specifically highlighted those figures. Now you are backtracking with your assists don't matter shenanigans.
The "struggles" angle breaks down if you consider other teams' PGs that don't have higher scoring numbers in losses than wins, unless you think only GS experiences scoring slumps that somehow don't affect the PG. What about when Curry has a scoring slump? Those games where he has poor shooting and yet the team wins? Don't you think that affects the point differential of the W/L? Or do you think Curry has the ability to average 27ppg at will?I also have addressed the discrepancy in more than one post. Since you seem simple, I can reiterate yet again. His teammates, particularly David Lee and Klay Thompson (those 3 are the main sources of GS offense) have had significant struggles in their losses, evidenced my the very large decrease in FG% in their splits. When teammates can't hit shots, the onus is on Curry to make sure they get points however they can, so he presses. His shooting% isn't even a full % lower in any case.
You do like to ignore the real questions and cherry pick the ones you think you have solved. You haven't solved anything, btw...
What stats support your take? The Spurs share points and assists because they move the ball. It has little to do with blowout wins.
I also brought up the point that you are confusing the cause and effect in the scoring figures. They aren't necessarily losing because he is scoring more, but rather he is pressured to score points when they are losing and his main partners in crime are struggling to score. Alternately, like we have seen with the spurs, many times in blowout wins we have a collection of guys chipping in 10-15 points rather than having one or two dominant scorers. Do we win because nobody is particular is putting up big figures, or rather, are the minutes/shots getting distributed due to the comfortable lead that is held throughout the game?
If you've made an argument, I've not seen it. What I have seen from you is unsupported conjecture that's easily defeated.these are points I had made before that you seem to ignore just so you can bull me with your "you haven't made an argument" shtick. you would get shredded in court since there is a stenographer typing up every word spoken in the courtroom. You are like an attorney that snoozed during the trial and tells the jury "the other guy didn't prove anything!"
"It's not the numbers of shots it's the type of shots. I don't care if he plays 40 mins per game and takes only 15 shots, those are 15 bad shots. Many of them are 3's and 3's are bad shots, it doesn't matter that he shoots 40 something % from 3's." 
