Who is More Important to His Team: Jimmy Butler or Kawhi Leonard?

[dabom]

I don't quite get the statement you're trying to make, mainly because of your syntax. But no, copying people who are smarter than you doesn't deserve credit. Were you one of those kids who turned in photocopies of Cliffnotes for your English Assignments?



I assume you mean that I should make game predictions, since I make a ton of assessments. I certainly don't feel bad for using stats the way they're supposed to be used (descriptively). I'll take that over your inability to think outside of what people tell you. I just wish you showed that you actually think about what you say, but alas, I'm left waiting.

Please post the comments I copied from them. Show me proof got. Not just stupid ing delirious statements.

Again you have no basketball takes.

[Hoops Czar]

Butler is tougher and has a better offensive game, handles and passing. His defense is very solid as well. Kawhi may have a slight edge on defense but it is small. Other than that, I don't see many advantages Kawhi has over Butler. They are very close overall but I Butler gets the edge as the better all around player and is more valuable to his team than Kawhi is to the Spurs. If the Spurs lost Kawhi they would still be pretty good and most likely make the playoffs. If the Bulls lost Butler, their offense would completely break down and they would be sub .500 and out of the playoff hunt.

Wouldn't Butler >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Green be a better comparison? Is there anything Green can do better than Butler? I mean, Green will always be arguably the greatest shooter in NBA playoff history from a historical perspective (2 years) but Butler is by far the better all around player.

[Chinook]

Please post the comments I copied from them. Show me proof got. Not just stupid ing delirious statements.

Again you have no basketball takes.

Why did you bold part of my post and then not even comment on it? Do you not even know that much?

And at the "I said it in my own words" defense. You telling me I have no basketball takes is a really poor line of reasoning. You can disagree with them all you want, but there's no way you can say I don't have them unless you're so clueless you don't even know what a basketball take is.

[Chinook]

Wouldn't Butler >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Green be a better comparison? Is there anything Green can do better than Butler? I mean, Green will always be arguably the greatest shooter in NBA playoff history from a historical perspective (2 years) but Butler is by far the better all around player.

You can also argue that Green's a better defender than Butler. I doubt the numbers show that this season, since Danny has been awful. But Jimmy was abysmal in 2014, while Danny was elite. , Green's been elite on defense for years now. There are definitely elements of defense that Green is better than Butler at, like rim protection and transition D. Jimmy is the better overall player, but I won't trade Green for him right now.

[dabom]

Why did you bold part of my post and then not even comment on it? Do you not even know that much?

And at the "I said it in my own words" defense. You telling me I have no basketball takes is a really poor line of reasoning. You can disagree with them all you want, but there's no way you can say I don't have them unless you're so clueless you don't even know what a basketball take is.

"I certainly don't feel bad for using stats the way they're supposed to be used (descriptively)."

"Again you have no basketball takes. "

Again I looked up "basketball take" and nothing relevant came out. If you have a different definition that's fine. Let's not argue on the semantics.

Lets bringing it back on topic using normal language. You don't provide any predictions or assess future match up problems for the Spurs.

[dabom]

Also casually ignoring how I copy Apol and Harlem.

[peacemaker885]

Kawhi. Butler won't last under Pop. Very few players can last in the Spurs system. One has to be super efficient offensively to get the numbers since you really can't hog the ball.

[cjw]

Those are pretty big sample sizes (18 games last season and 16 the previous, that's a fifth of the season). Obviously there's no way to know for certain what would have happened without Kawhi. I'm simply pointing out that the Spurs have been a .500 team without Kawhi the past 2 seasons in response to the OP's post/topic. That's not saying they wouldn't be able to figure things out.

Right on sample size = that's pretty telling how the team struggled without him. Last year, it was partly too the time of year he went down and how brutal that stretch was. Also, there was literally no viable backup for him during that stretch. We see what happens when a guy like Belli is forced to play starter minutes at SF.

[Brazil]

You don't think the spurs a .500 team without Kawhi or what?

Without Kawhi Spurs are much worst team but still > .500 team... are you saying without Kawhi Spurs miss the POs ? it never happened under Duncan's era before and after Kawhi. We made the POs with RMJ, centerpiece and ing RJ. Stats about team being 8-8 and 9-9 without him are misleading as pointed out by Chinook as I've seen next page, not counting the fact without Kawhi there is a roster spot to fill.

[dabom]

Without Kawhi Spurs are much worst team but still > .500 team... are you saying without Kawhi Spurs miss the POs ? it never happened under Duncan's era before and after Kawhi. We made the POs with RMJ, centerpiece and ing RJ. Stats about team being 8-8 and 9-9 without him are misleading as pointed out by Chinook as I've seen next page, not counting the fact without Kawhi there is a roster spot to fill.

The big three wasn't as old as it is now. Granted the west is weak this year, we still don't have a wing back-up that can spell minutes that even patty mills actually plays big minutes with Tony. We still don't have a SF backup. KA is not the answer. The team can't rebound as great without Kawhi. Imagine a lot of second chance points for other teams. The team just looks old and can't get over the hump when Kawhi isn't playing. And unlike Tony and Manu, you can give more minutes to Kawhi any game and it wouldn't have repercussions.

The team would hover above .500 and maybe not even have a 50 win record. That's how I see it.

[SpurPadre]

Paul George would be the better comparison, tbh.

[All Mighty Janitor]

This tread got me thinking. Is Jimmy Butler the best shooting guard right now? Harden has been ; regressed on D(back to 2013-14 levels if not worse), terrible shooting percentages(although his true shooting % is ok but not normal), and high ass turnovers. Klay hasn't been himself either. Beal looked great vs us, but Butler is still better in almost every category.

[Chinook]

"I certainly don't feel bad for using stats the way they're supposed to be used (descriptively)."

"Again you have no basketball takes. "

Again I looked up "basketball take" and nothing relevant came out. If you have a different definition that's fine. Let's not argue on the semantics.

Lets bringing it back on topic using normal language. You don't provide any predictions or assess future match up problems for the Spurs.

Yes, stats say what happened, not what will happen. That's basic statistical philosophy. You can't say that player X will do well in situation A simply because of his stats. Anything can happen, and trends break all the time. Stats are an analytical tool, and they don't belong in predictive discussion. But to say I never make predictions or give my opinions on the present is silly. I'm as big of a frequenter of the Think Tank as anyone here is. I have posts in many threads talking about LMA fitting in and the potential match-up with GS. The fact that you don't know that simply means you don't look, or that you don't recognize an actual take.

Your emoticons don't hide the fact that you have no substance as a poster. It never did.

[Chinook]

Also casually ignoring how I copy Apol and Harlem.

What does that even mean?

[dabom]

What does that even mean?

Show proof dumbass.

[dabom]

Yes, stats say what happened, not what will happen. That's basic statistical philosophy. You can't say that player X will do well in situation A simply because of his stats. Anything can happen, and trends break all the time. Stats are an analytical tool, and they don't belong in predictive discussion. But to say I never make predictions or give my opinions on the present is silly. I'm as big of a frequenter of the Think Tank as anyone here is. I have posts in many threads talking about LMA fitting in and the potential match-up with GS. The fact that you don't know that simply means you don't look, or that you don't recognize an actual take.

Your emoticons don't hide the fact that you have no substance as a poster. It never did.

Never seen you post anything relevant in the Spurs Forum. Posting under think tank doesn't make you any better. I post where everyone is because I ain't afraid to be critiqued. I ain't a puss like you.

Walls of text doesn't make you smarter dumbass.

[Hoops Czar]

Never seen you post anything relevant in the Spurs Forum. Posting under think tank doesn't make you any better. I post where everyone is because I ain't afraid to be critiqued. I ain't a puss like you.

Do you see the irony in this post? I don't think I've ever come across a dabom post that needed to be critiqued .

[Chinook]

Show proof dumbass.

Are you sure that's what that sentence means?

[Chinook]

Never seen you post anything relevant in the Spurs Forum. Posting under think tank doesn't make you any better. I post where everyone is because I ain't afraid to be critiqued. I ain't a puss like you.

Walls of text doesn't make you smarter dumbass.

The point of the Think Tank is to speculate. Are you really that worthless at understanding? I'm the mod of a forum whose entire goal is to speculate, and you try to pretend like I only talk about the past? And that completely ignores the thousands of regular-forum posts I've made.

The only possible saving grace I have for you is that you must thinking that making new threads is the only way to have basketball takes. You'd be right to say I don't make threads too often, probably five a year not counting the TT. I don't have to make a new topic any time I have a thought like you seem compelled to do.

[DPG21920]

The point of the Think Tank is to speculate. Are you really that worthless at understanding? I'm the mod of a forum whose entire goal is to speculate, and you try to pretend like I only talk about the past? And that completely ignores the thousands of regular-forum posts I've made.

The only possible saving grace I have for you is that you must thinking that making new threads is the only way to have basketball takes. You'd be right to say I don't make threads too often, probably five a year not counting the TT. I don't have to make a new topic any time I have a thought like you seem compelled to do.

Why are you arguing with this person? It's really stupid to go back and forth unless it's fun for you..

[Brazil]

The big three wasn't as old as it is now. Granted the west is weak this year, we still don't have a wing back-up that can spell minutes that even patty mills actually plays big minutes with Tony. We still don't have a SF backup. KA is not the answer. The team can't rebound as great without Kawhi. Imagine a lot of second chance points for other teams. The team just looks old and can't get over the hump when Kawhi isn't playing. And unlike Tony and Manu, you can give more minutes to Kawhi any game and it wouldn't have repercussions.

The team would hover above .500 and maybe not even have a 50 win record. That's how I see it.

Reading your post I think we overall agree tbh

Kawhi is clearly the one who put the Spurs in the contender list but this roster leaded by Tim with a capabe dude at SF position would be enough to get a PO spot and a win record > .500.

[Chinook]

Why are you arguing with this person? It's really stupid to go back and forth unless it's fun for you..

Thanksgiving Wednesday, and I'm bored. Plus, I hate seeing that red '1' on my page.

[DPG21920]

Thanksgiving Wednesday, and I'm bored. Plus, I hate seeing that red '1' on my page.

Got ya - but I just hate to see people expend energy on stuff like that. Especially if you aren't taking the opportunity to at least crack some jokes in there.

[cjw]

This tread got me thinking. Is Jimmy Butler the best shooting guard right now? Harden has been ; regressed on D(back to 2013-14 levels if not worse), terrible shooting percentages(although his true shooting % is ok but not normal), and high ass turnovers. Klay hasn't been himself either. Beal looked great vs us, but Butler is still better in almost every category.

This has been going on longer than just this season. In 59 games since last year's ASG (including playoffs), Harden is averaging 27.4 ppg on awful shooting:

300/656 from 2pt (45.7%)
144/425 from 3pt (33.9%)
587/665 from FT (88.3%) - nearly 10ppg from line

7.05 assists to 4.2 turnovers

That's really bad considering it's not like this is AI in his prime on a team full of D-League quality guys.

[dabom]

The point of the Think Tank is to speculate. Are you really that worthless at understanding? I'm the mod of a forum whose entire goal is to speculate, and you try to pretend like I only talk about the past? And that completely ignores the thousands of regular-forum posts I've made.

The only possible saving grace I have for you is that you must thinking that making new threads is the only way to have basketball takes. You'd be right to say I don't make threads too often, probably five a year not counting the TT. I don't have to make a new topic any time I have a thought like you seem compelled to do.

I'm going to ignore your "takes". I'm done with this conversation. Don't want to ruffle cyber feathers.