Reply With Quote
You have to use in relation to the league. We have dropped our offense and we have had a cupcake schedule. Those numbers are inflated too.
I'm not trying to pat myself, I'm just bringing down your re ed arguments so that that dumb doesn't get spread around.
Your whole go to move on this was to say that your dumb subjective opinions are more important than actual facts. Do you realize just how ing laughable that is?
"It doesn't matter than numbers suggest that the offense runs better without Parker on the floor for the past 4 seasons, I think that it runs better when he is on so that is the true".
"It doesn't matter that Kawhi isos just 3 times per game I feel like he isos more so he should cut that down".
"I don't care that the Spurs are ranked 18th on offense right now, I feel they have played better than when Kawhi is in".
"I don't care that Patty is having one of the worst shooting seasons of his career and most Spurs fans are ing about his play to start off the season, I need to say that he has been playing better just to justify my re ed take"
Look dude, I don't know what your deal is with Kawhi but you are wrong about him. You were wrong back in the day when you thought LA should be the number one option over him and you are even more wrong now that you can't accept clear cut facts that prove that a Kawhi centered offense is the best offense for the Spurs. Your basketball takes are bad, like really, really bad. That's why you should pay more attention to stats instead of saying what it is in your mind despite having facts to refute your reasoning.
P/S: I still think Parker and LA aren't the answer on a playoffs series vs the Warriors. Time will tell if I'm wrong.
Last edited by DAF86; 12-11-2017 at 12:53 AM.
You have to use in relation to the league. We have dropped our offense and we have had a cupcake schedule. Those numbers are inflated too.
I stop reading after something like...they are playing better but numbers don't reflect that.
If they are "less efficient" while they couldn't adapt to a new role...I would love to know how this means they're playing "better". It's very clear that they aren't.
NVM. I thought you was talking about my dude Patty.
Says the guy who tried to argue that you're right because some posters "call me out"
No, my "go-to move" is to actually know what the arguments put forth by the stats are. They don't say what you want them to say, which has been your issue this whole time. You keep citing them and hoping they support your argument without really knowing anything about them.Your whole go to move on this was to say that your dumb subjective opinions are more important than actual facts. Do you realize just how ing laughable that is?
A lot of these just show you can't understand/remember a person's arguments.It doesn't matter than numbers suggest that the offense runs better without Parker on the floor for the past 4 seasons, I think that it runs better when he is on so that is the true".
"It doesn't matter that Kawhi isos just 3 times per game I feel like he isos more so he should cut that down".
"I don't care that the Spurs are ranked 18th on offense right now, I feel they have played better than when Kawhi is in".
"I don't care that Patty is having one of the worst shooting seasons of his career and most Spurs fans are ing about his play to start off the season, I need to say that he has been playing better just to justify my re ed take"
-For the first one, it's obvious that you can't tell the difference between the offense running better with Manu versus the offense running better without Parker. We know Manu's a better facilitator than Tony. The bench usually has the superior differential, and that's one of the big reasons. But that doesn't mean that having Tony playing over Murray or even Mills isn't an improvement.
-Two you know so little about basketball that you can only use one definition of iso to make an argument. Anyone else wouldn't have a problem with saying post-ups are usually also iso plays or that simply getting a screen and then shooting isn't functionally different.
-Yes, it's possible for a group of players to be playing better even though they aren't elite scorers. Danny could get worlds better on offense and still not be half as good as Leonard.
-Should be able to tell there's more to the playing than shooting, but even if you didn't, you should have known Patty's shooting has been fine since the start of November (40 percent from three).
So you're just going to come over that you knew so little about stats that you cited the wrong one earlier? , I might have to double-check all your links from now on, just to make sure they aren't fake. Even after all this, I gave you the benefit of the doubt to know how to look something up. But it was too much.Look dude, I don't know what your deal is with Kawhi but you are wrong about him. You were wrong back in the day when you thought LA should be the number one option over him and you are even more wrong now that you can't accept clear cut facts that prove that a Kawhi centered offense is the best offense for the Spurs. Your basketball takes are bad, like really, really bad. That's why you should pay more attention to stats instead of saying what it is in your mind despite having facts to refute your reasoning.
I don't have an issue with Kawhi. I have an issue with Kawhiso. That's not a nickname for the player. The team's offense as it was won't work. Even if it looks fine statistically,it created a unit where only one guy could score. That's how you got folks thinking the team was going to be horrible without Kawhi. I've said numerous times that a) Kawhi coming back will make the team contenders and b) Kawhi needs to iso to be his best. But that can't just be done the way it has been. It won't create enough movement to get other guys involved. That was something I've actually gone into detail explaining, but it apparently went way beyond you.
I don't really disagree, but I'm not sure which way you think that would swing the numbers.
Should have continued to read then. But of course, taking people's quotes out of context has been your shtick for years now.
Why do you keep saying this. Kawhi isn't ISO a lot, when he does it's to bail out the team. And even then, he has shown to be a net positive to the ing max on offense. Where are you getting this illusion that he hurts the team somewhere?
No, my "go-to move" is to actually know what the arguments put forth by the stats are. They don't say what you want them to say, which has been your issue this whole time. You keep citing them and hoping they support your argument without really knowing anything about them.
A lot of these just show you can't understand/remember a person's arguments.
-For the first one, it's obvious that you can't tell the difference between the offense running better with Manu versus the offense running better without Parker. We know Manu's a better facilitator than Tony. The bench usually has the superior differential, and that's one of the big reasons. But that doesn't mean that having Tony playing over Murray or even Mills isn't an improvement.
-Two you know so little about basketball that you can only use one definition of iso to make an argument. Anyone else wouldn't have a problem with saying post-ups are usually also iso plays or that simply getting a screen and then shooting isn't functionally different.
-Yes, it's possible for a group of players to be playing better even though they aren't elite scorers. Danny could get worlds better on offense and still not be half as good as Leonard.
-Should be able to tell there's more to the playing than shooting, but even if you didn't, you should have known Patty's shooting has been fine since the start of November (40 percent from three).
So you're just going to come over that you knew so little about stats that you cited the wrong one earlier? , I might have to double-check all your links from now on, just to make sure they aren't fake. Even after all this, I gave you the benefit of the doubt to know how to look something up. But it was too much.
I don't have an issue with Kawhi. I have an issue with Kawhiso. That's not a nickname for the player. The team's offense as it was won't work. Even if it looks fine statistically,it created a unit where only one guy could score. That's how you got folks thinking the team was going to be horrible without Kawhi. I've said numerous times that a) Kawhi coming back will make the team contenders and b) Kawhi needs to iso to be his best. But that can't just be done the way it has been. It won't create enough movement to get other guys involved. That was something I've actually gone into detail explaining, but it apparently went way beyond you.
Easy schedule, better efficiency. Normal season schedule, those numbers would get worse.
Does my dude BillMc think Kawhi is stagnating the offensive flow on the Spurs?
Lol who would of thunk it . Im a Tony Parker fan. Best PG on team.Porker fluffer.
Patty my boy but he aint no real PG.. im hoping the boomers take note & let Ben Simmons run the show.
Ya still hating on the usual suspects.
It's not about being a "net positive". Kawhi is an elite offensive player. (His offensive on-offs were amazing as evidence.) Of course he's going to help more than he hurts. This is about finding the optimal way of using his talents, which is something Pop has done with his other stars and is figuring out how to do with Aldridge.Why do you keep saying this. Kawhi isn't ISO a lot, when he does it's to bail out the team. And even then, he has shown to be a net positive to the ing max on offense. Where are you getting this illusion that he hurts the team somewhere?
Outside of Aldridge, a lot of the players have struggled to maintain their efficiency in bigger roles and with more attention. Those obstacles will be severely mitigated when Kawhi comes back. However, with that has come a Green who is more willing to drive and craftier with the ball in his hands, a Mills who is more of a PG than he ever was and who looks for his own shot again, a Kyle who's aggressive both scoring and passing and most obviously a LMA who's willing to step up a lot more. Those are things the team has needed desperately, and they can't afford to let those go. A lot of that is just their own mentalities. But a lot of it is also that the timing of the offense is a lot more regular. LMA, DG and PM are rhythm guys, whereas Kawhi isn't. Kawhi is a, "I can beat you in so many ways that I can try a whole bunch of stuff" guy, and that is hard to build an offense around.
Maybe, but they also tore Boston to shreds, and it was the best defense in the league. In fact, most of their big wins came against at least average defenses.
A little bit better, but then you said this, "Kawhi is hard to build an offense around". ?
Good. But you still know I'm right.
And we all know chinook's bias comes from Danny Green struggling on offense and blaming Kawhi. That's the end of it.
It might shock you, but that's true of a lot of great scorers, especially wings. Think about how Lebron can never seem to get enough help, or how KD had to find a ready-made contender, or how people are ing about giving Giannis a robin despite the talent on that roster. Or , you can go into Kobe, or Wade. It's always easier to build with bigs, and PGs because they can be stars without having to invert part of normal position theory. It today's stretch-big era, it's easier to do that. But then you have to ask yourself what pieces fit best next to guys like the aforementioned, and it's tricky to find complimentary players.A little bit better, but then you said this, "Kawhi is hard to build an offense around". ?
Bill looks at the big picture and says the Spurs are averaging 64 wins the last two years that Kawhi has been in the lineup and the alpha dog. Any complaints are nit picking. I also know that Kawhi had to "wait his turn" until Tim, Tony and Manu aged to be the beast on offense. It's natural for him to want to show off his skill, and he's easily our best player. If he continues to isolate, and we continue to win, what can you say? Toast the man.
That said, it does remind me of early Jordan when Phil had to convince him to get his teammates involve for the betterment of the program. LMA, Rudy, Tony, Pau, Kyle and our host of shooters are too talented just to stand around and watch. I'd prefer Kawhi to give up a little of the offense so he can release ish armegedeon on defense.
Tony and Pau and Manu and Patty all can probably give up offensive numbers at this point with little ego problems. Maybe Rudy can too. But LMA, needs his touches or he pouts. And to get him those touches, you don't want an OKC offense where everyone takes turns. You need to get LMA his points in the flow of the offense, which again means less Kawhi isos.
So does Kawhi stagnate the offense? I don't know, probably not. It's not like he's Melo. Bu could Kawhi help it move more? Sure.
Dont wonder too much . David Robsinon set the bar Tim Duncan continued that team first mentality. It wont be an issue as Kawai learnt from the best. Only player fans thinks its an issue. Winning & les overcomes hurt feelings.
We're done here folks.
There is ZERO proof, Kawhi stagnates the offense. Of that he is limiting the team on offense. That is all speculation Bill. And Chinook can't prove that.
I'm bored. I'm out. tonight...you......
The "proof" will either come or it won't. If LMA doesn't get touches, and if Green and Patty seem to forget how to shoot again, while Kawhi goes back to his old self (something I'm concerned about being able to do in the first place), then that will be compelling evidence. Until then, there will be excuses, and theories, just like there was a lot of that going on when discussing Kawhi's terrible defensive on-offs. I don't think anyone's just willing to accept the null when it comes to Kawhi's impact stats. Something was weird last year.
Kawhi's "iso" possessions are one of those instances where the eye test is good enough to measure how they affect the team.
Often times, the offense has already stagnated before he has to bail them out, or he'll make something happen out of a previously broken play. Anyone who watches the games should know that he exponentially helps the team on offense. The fact that we're - last I checked - an average offensive team at best without him only serves to prove how valuable he is on that end of the floor.
Some here need to stop overcomplicating basketball.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
