Off-point? You made the claim that Fish was assigned to guard Diaw. I just pointed out that you are a re that doesn't watch many games, and when you do you fail to understand what is going on.
Assigned to him or left him out there knowing the switch was coming. Fine, you can win the internet there even though the difference regarding the main point doesn't change.
I guess you are really desperate to save at least some face here, so I'm glad to at least give you a morsel of being correct in this horrible thread topic where everyone with half an unbiased brain is taking turns abusing you and DAF.
smh utsa
Your original point was Brooks would never put Fish on Lee. So no, you arent making me look stupid. Scoreboard say otherwise as well.
It was a switch everything strategy. If Lee was out there they wouldve switched on him too, just like they also switched on Timmy. It wasnt just Diaw.
So this is how it goes now? People that actually watch the games with some level of understanding give an intelligent take but that goes against common believe. Other less knowledgeable fans mock that opinion, then a fact is posted to back said opinion yet the less knowledgeable posters ignore it and claim "abuse" over the ones that actually knew what they were talking about.
when you say re ed like "Diaw is a better post player than Duncan" then what the do you expect? And then twist numbers to fit your flawed ty take. I can find numbers that "prove" Matt Cassel is a better quarterback than Peyton Manning but that doesn't make it any less re ed to say he is.So this is how it goes now? People that actually watch the games with some level of understanding give an intelligent take but that goes against common believe. Other less knowledgeable fans mock that opinion, then a fact is posted to back said opinion yet the less knowledgeable posters ignore it and claim "abuse" over the ones that actually knew what they were talking about.
Twist numbers? It doesn't get a lot more straight forward than points per post up attempt, tbh.
Last edited by DAF86; 06-02-2014 at 07:36 PM.
Twist numbers? It doesn't get a lot more straight forward than points per post up attempt, tbh.
knowing how re ed that stat is but pretending like it means only because it fits your argument.
No, you're right, taking a lower volume of post shots against weaker post defenders wouldn't artificially inflate someone's points per post up.
That stat reflects exactly what FkLA and I were saying: That when Diaw post ups he tends to have a higher success% than Duncan. Of course Duncan post ups more often than Diaw (I don't know if that much often) and against stiffer compe ion but we never argued other wise.
No, you're right, taking a lower volume of post shots against weaker post defenders wouldn't artificially inflate someone's points per post up.
BTW, I don't know how saying that a Spur player has a higher success% in the post than other Spur player makes me a homer.
BTW, I don't know how saying that a Spur player has a higher success% in the post than other Spur player makes me a homer.
Malik Hairston, you subscribe to Synergy brah? If I'm not mistaken you gotta pay for it. If so, could you post the points per post up (and total post up attempts) for Diaw, Lee and Duncan pls ?
One can only imagine the Diaw slurpers' storm if the Spurs ring.... "Boris = unquestioned GOAT" will be next
What happened to the eye test?
My eye test is fine, and the link I posted more than proves that. But I'm interested to see how the other two compare statistically with The Animal.
You didn't fully read the link you posted. I proved that.
cot damn.
Please.
smh utsa
You didn't fully read my initial post on the subject and DAF proved that.
Fish wouldn't have been stuck on Lee in that switch everything scenario ?Please.
smh utsa
smh tech
so what
Lee doesn't shoot the three, so imo, Brooks would probably go taller to compensate.
I already said this.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
