IMU wrote:
long time guy wrote:
It is when you pro rate the numbers out as you attempted to do with Portis. Also you lied about there career numbers being equal. They aren't
I posted it straight from Basketball Reference. Are you implying that Basketball Reference fudges NBA statistics?
There is nothing pro-rated about 36 minutes. Bobby Portis played all of those sets of 36 minutes. So did Jabari Parker. Every single statistic provided is not a 'what if they played 36 minutes per game.' Those statistics are 'here is what the players actually did per 36 minutes on the court.'
Quote:
I know I should not be this frustrated with you. Your issues are well documented. BUT HOW DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE CONCEPT?! WHO PUT YOU IN CHARGE OF CHILDREN?!
Hopefully not the same people that decided that it was a great idea for you to ever moderate this site you damn blithering idiot. I'm sure they would never make a mistake as egregious as that you clown.
As previously stated (i know that your rudimentary educational level requires a step by step booklet) Per 36 is a meaningless stat if one guys plays 31-32 minutes a game and another plays 18. Yeah sure it is all about every 36th minute that a guy is on the court but guys that play significantly more minutes are always more valuable than guys that don't.
Starters and reserves exist for a reason. I know you are too stupid to understand why but they do. Trust me or anyone else that has even the slightest inkling about sports.
The reason that I constantly refer to you as being rather dumb is that for some reason you seem to think that you can simply trot out numbers and determine efficiency. You can't. How did that work out for MCW? Lance? your stupid comparison between Thomas and Portis? There are other factors besides simply playing a guy longer and he will put up certain numbers
Its dumb as shit to compare career bench players to guys that have started and played significant minutes.
THe main reason that I attempt to avoid conversations with you is because I know that you are unable to comprehend anything which doesn't relate to stats. I know that you aren't learned enough to properly interpret the phrase "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics". If so you wouldn't be as quick to resort to usage of them as a means of validating your silly arguments all the time.
If I asked you to tell me what makes Bobby Portis a better basketball player than Jabari Parker I guarantee that you couldn't without referring to basketball reference. You don't seem to realize that it is merely a support mechanism. For you its the Holy Bible. You can't have a basketball conversation without it turning into stats inc. I refer to it from time to time but you absolutely live by it.
This is why its a waste of time to engage in any sort of conversation with you.
_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.