Reply With Quote
He's just a porker pumper.I swear, these Kawhi haters are ing idiots.
What is the point OP? You still haven't clearly stated anything without dipping into every category.OP writes "Kawhi is a slightly above average defender this season" using RPM
then writes tons of sentences on why it's not matching his "eye test" using bits and pieces of raw stats
then he states that Kawhi has indeed slipped defensively to save his energy for offense
Then goes back and says RPM is bad inconsistent.
Even though on other posts uses BPM(a very ing similar stat).
Which one is it OP? You everywhere, got.
He's just a porker pumper.I swear, these Kawhi haters are ing idiots.
Are you this re ed or just being Mexican?I swear, these Kawhi haters are ing idiots.
I actually just read your entire post, fair analysis..although I still don't see why this needed a thread.
I'm actually Jewish.
Do I need to spell it out?What is the point OP? You still haven't clearly stated anything without dipping into every category.
Feel free to accept its results as gospel, though. I'll exit this debate and leave you to jerk off to RPM if you say right now:ti;dr RPM is a bad, inconsistent "advanced" metric.
"I believe Kawhi is the 20th best defender at the SF position in the league and that Jimmy Butler is having a better year."
But you won't say that, because you know the stat is garbage. You only selectively use it to prop up the Microwave.
Are you trying to change the definition of "production" used by everyone talking about basketball stats to fit your narrative?
*It only frees up an offensive player for a better shot (and open shots are statistically more productive)*
*Spacing creates bigger driving and passing lanes, which also creates better/open shots*
You're really this stupid, aren't you? Please tell me it's all an act.
Everyone knows what people mean when someone uses "production."
Everyone knows what everyone is saying by using "impact" stats.
They are not the same, got.
Because there's too much dependence on this crappy stat on not just ST but the basketball community in general.
Are you trying to change the definition of "production" used my everyone talking about basketball stats to fit your narrative?
Everyone knows what people mean when someone uses "production."
Everyone knows what everyone is saying by using "impact" stats.
They are not the same, got.
And
I used production as catch-all term for player effectiveness. Jesus ion' Christ you're anal. Must be salty about Parker's good year and House's slump and height.
It's not semantics when the whole community knows what something is except one ing dumbass.
And
I used production as catch-all term for player effectiveness. Jesus ion' Christ you're anal. Must be salty about Parker's good year and House's slump and height.
Well, Baseline Bum did say Michael Kidd-Gilchrist had more potential than Kawhi.
And
I criticized a stat that is severely underrating his favorite player (Kawhi) in comparison to players like Luke Babbitt, Paul Pierce, and Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, and which rates Jimmy Butler higher, but he still lashes out because he's so desperate to win an argument against me and also can't jump off the RPM bandwagon because doing so will give him less ammunition in the House/Parker debate.
It ALWAYS comes back to House/Parker for the helmets
What does impact generate?It's not semantics when the whole community knows what something is except one ing dumbass.
Guess what?
Production.
I already stated dumbass OP in my first post.
You don't know what your talking about dumbass.
OP states he was gonna leave already. Maybe this is another one of his interchangeable words/meanings.
So solid picks aren't proven to free up players for higher percentage shots?You don't know what your talking about dumbass.
Good to know. I'll phone NBA GMs and let them know your revelation.
I'm also still waiting for:
You're going to own up or be a ?Feel free to accept its results as gospel, though. I'll exit this debate and leave you to jerk off to RPM if you say right now:
"I believe Kawhi is the 20th best defender at the SF position in the league and that Jimmy Butler is having a better year."
But you won't say that, because you know the stat is garbage. You only selectively use it to prop up the Microwave.
Production are box score stats dumbass.
No I didn't. Only if you say:OP states he was gonna leave already. Maybe this is another one of his interchangeable words/meanings.
And I want you to really believe, meaning put it in your sig.Feel free to accept its results as gospel, though. I'll exit this debate and leave you to jerk off to RPM if you say right now:
"I believe Kawhi is the 20th best defender at the SF position in the league and that Jimmy Butler is having a better year."
But you won't say that, because you know the stat is garbage. You only selectively use it to prop up the Microwave.
Hockey assists are tracked like on one site and no others. So is it a "box score" stat or not? Is it "production" or not?Production are box score stats dumbass.
What is this? The 1960s.
"I'll exit this debate"... and still here, got.
Sorry to break it to you but when someone says their production is down, they are talking about box score stats dumbass.(eg points rebounds assist blocks...)Hockey assists are tracked like on one site and no others. So is it a "box score" stat or not? Is it "production" or not?
What is this? The 1960s.
IF."I'll exit this debate IF"... and still here, got.
Now are you gonna step up and side RPM full stop or be a ?
If you don't, I can never take you referencing it in any other debate seriously.
I guess I am wrong about that. I'm trying to read and reply at work.
You still wrong about production and impact. As a basketball forum, you made a severe mistake.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions