- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Houston Rockets vs. LA Clippers | Game 6 | 9:30 (CT) on ESPN | LAC 3-2
Posted on 5/13/15 at 1:34 pm to tiggerthetooth
Posted on 5/13/15 at 1:34 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:He shot below 40% this season, and is widely known as a poor defender. So he's an inefficient volume shooter who can't defend, basically just not a very good player.
and i do believe you, but can you explain how?
I mean, he's better than Rivers in that he is known to get hot and have big games, whereas RIvers isn't known for that, despite his recent outburst.
But I think we're just comparing 2 below average players at this point, they're both not very good this season.
1
Posted on 5/13/15 at 1:35 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
Im not disagreeing when I say this, and i do believe you, but can you explain how?
He's saying this so if the Rockets win he can say that Paul's teammates weren't good enough. That's been his MO for years.
Posted on 5/13/15 at 1:36 pm to shel311
quote:
He shot below 40% this season, and is widely known as a poor defender. So he's an inefficient volume shooter who can't defend, basically just not a very good player.
Higher TS% than Melo and Melo can't defend either, is MELO a net negative?
Posted on 5/13/15 at 1:39 pm to Boomshockalocka
quote:So you think Rivers and Crawford are above average players?
He's saying this so if the Rockets win he can say that Paul's teammates weren't good enough.
quote:Good luck finding any Rockets posts I've made before these playoffs.
That's been his MO for years.
Honestly, do you lie and make things up EVERY single time you try to make a failed point? At some point, it seems like the light bulb would go off to make you realize it's not a good idea, especially with me, considering how often I prove your facts to be made up.
Posted on 5/13/15 at 1:43 pm to shel311
Crawford, yes easily. He'd be the first man off the bench for every team in the league. His PER falls somewhere in between 'Solid 2nd option' and '3rd banana' on Hollinger's PER reference guide. And we know you love PER.
Rivers sucks he won't shoot over 33% in any more of the games in this series.
You're the biggest Paul homer on the board, for you to make other players seems like they suck to take heat off of Paul when his team loses in par for the course for you.
Rivers sucks he won't shoot over 33% in any more of the games in this series.
quote:
Honestly, do you lie and make things up EVERY single time you try to make a failed point? At some point, it seems like the light bulb would go off to make you realize it's not a good idea, especially with me, considering how often I prove your facts to be made up.
You're the biggest Paul homer on the board, for you to make other players seems like they suck to take heat off of Paul when his team loses in par for the course for you.
Posted on 5/13/15 at 1:44 pm to Boomshockalocka
quote:Cherrypick and ignore, nice strategy!!!
Higher TS% than Melo and Melo can't defend either, is MELO a net negative?
Not to mention no one will try to say Crawford is as good as Melo on D, no matter how bad you think Melo is.
Posted on 5/13/15 at 1:45 pm to Boomshockalocka
quote:And yet I won't lie or make up stats to make him look better, that's your thing.
You're the biggest Paul homer on the board
quote:Remember a couple of weeks ago when you were calling ever non-Harden friendly metric "irrelevant", and the only ones that were relevant were the ones that propped him up? Yea...
for you to make other players seems like they suck to take heat off of Paul when his team loses in par for the course for you.
This post was edited on 5/13/15 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 5/13/15 at 1:47 pm to shel311
He'd be the first man off the bench for every team in the league. His PER falls somewhere in between 'Solid 2nd option' and '3rd banana' on Hollinger's PER reference guide. And we know you love PER.
"Crawford isn't above average" Crawford is "net negative" :rotflmao:
quote:
And yet I won't lie
"Crawford isn't above average"
Crawford is "net negative" :rotflmao:
Posted on 5/13/15 at 1:47 pm to shel311
quote:
So you think Rivers and Crawford are above average players?
Wait..you DONT think Crawford is an above average player?
talk about
I mean I think he's overrated as well but to insinuate that he's below average? Come on
This post was edited on 5/13/15 at 1:49 pm
Posted on 5/13/15 at 1:48 pm to REG861
quote:Yes he claims he won't lie or make up stuff to make his guys look better. All of his outlandish claims are to make Paul look better if CLIPS lose so he can say Pauls teammates sucked and the other team was just better. Just a week ago he said if you take Harden off of HOU and Paul off of LAC that HOU would be easily the better team.
REG861
This post was edited on 5/13/15 at 1:51 pm
Posted on 5/13/15 at 1:51 pm to Boomshockalocka
quote:He falls firmly under the 3rd banana...now factor in his defensive metrics that don't factor into PER
He'd be the first man off the bench for every team in the league. His PER falls somewhere in between 'Solid 2nd option' and '3rd banana' on Hollinger's PER reference guide. And we know you love PER.
There ya go. It's not that hard to do, don't even have to make things up.
quote:I don't think you understand the very simple concept of facts and opinions. You're calling my opinions lies, i've on multiple occasions caught you in lies/fudged stats.
And yet I won't lie
Posted on 5/13/15 at 1:52 pm to REG861
quote:Hey, if sub 40%, inefficient volume shooters who play no D are your thing, you have at it.
I mean I think he's overrated as well but to insinuate that he's below average? Come on
This post was edited on 5/13/15 at 1:56 pm
Posted on 5/13/15 at 1:56 pm to shel311
quote:
He falls firmly under the 3rd banana...now factor in his defensive metrics that don't factor into PER
oh so 3rd banana is below average? Considering most team play at least 8 or 9 players is a game "3rd banana" is below average? Instead of cherry picking a few of my typograph errors why don't you learn what is half or 8 or half of 9 first bro.
quote:Your opinions are biased because you want to make Paul look as good as he possibly can. An easy way to do that is to make his teammates look like they aren't good and Paul is carrying a heavy load.
I don't think you understand the very simple concept of facts and opinions. You're calling my opinions lies, i've on multiple occasions caught you in lies/fudged stats.
Posted on 5/13/15 at 2:01 pm to Boomshockalocka
quote:Every single remaining playoff team has a minimum of 3 rotation players with better PERs than Crawford...bro, so yea, he's probably right at average or bottom half of the 8 or 9 men rotation, easy enough.
oh so 3rd banana is below average? Considering most team play at least 8 or 9 players is a game "3rd banana" is below average? Instead of cherry picking a few of my typograph errors why don't you learn what is half or 8 or half of 9 first bro.
quote:Remember a couple of weeks ago when you were calling ever non-Harden friendly metric "irrelevant", and the only ones that were relevant were the ones that propped him up? Yea...
Your opinions are biased because you want to make Paul look as good as he possibly can. An easy way to do that is to make his teammates look like they aren't good and Paul is carrying a heavy load.
The funny thing is, the LAC bench is widely regarded as being really bad, but I know you won't let that thought get in your way! Are you saying the LAC bench is good? Yes or no...
Posted on 5/13/15 at 2:02 pm to shel311
Many "scorers" have a lower FG% than other players because they are relied on to score in many different ways.
Some guy who isn't a versatile scorer might shoot 45%, but he has to get shots in a very specific manner.
I think now-a-days with all of the emphasis on statistics, people overlook that very important fact.
Versatile scorers, even if they shoot a lower percentage, can help teams win.
Some guy who isn't a versatile scorer might shoot 45%, but he has to get shots in a very specific manner.
I think now-a-days with all of the emphasis on statistics, people overlook that very important fact.
Versatile scorers, even if they shoot a lower percentage, can help teams win.
Posted on 5/13/15 at 2:03 pm to shel311
Get off my Lawn!!!
But hey, who cares about defense, right?
But hey, who cares about defense, right?
quote:
Certainly, Crawford is a much better option than any of the other reserves meant to fill his role as the scorer off the bench, but it doesn't equate to having an overall positive effect on the Clippers as a whole.
The reason? As much as Crawford is a threat on offense, he is twice as worse on the defensive end.
quote:
His Defensive Real Plus Minus is the lowest of anyone one the team by roughly 1.71 points and is ranked 454th in the league.
Posted on 5/13/15 at 2:04 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:We're not talking 45%, we're talking 39.6%. And again, he's one of the worst defenders in the game, see above, ranked 454th in the NBA.
Many "scorers" have a lower FG% than other players because they are relied on to score in many different ways.
Some guy who isn't a versatile scorer might shoot 45%, but he has to get shots in a very specific manner.
quote:People overlook defense wayyyyyyy more IMO.
I think now-a-days with all of the emphasis on statistics, people overlook that very important fact.
Posted on 5/13/15 at 2:05 pm to shel311
quote:
Every single remaining playoff team
Oh so now we are only looking at playoff teams, you said he wasa below average player, not a below average among playoff teams. Move those goal posts a little more, keep trying.
quote:no I don't
Remember a couple of weeks ago when you were calling ever non-Harden friendly metric "irrelevant", and the only ones that were relevant were the ones that propped him up? Yea...
quote:
The funny thing is, the LAC bench is widely regarded as being really bad, but I know you won't let that thought get in your way! Are you saying the LAC bench is good? Yes or no...
Crawford is easily above average the rest of the bench is really bad.
Posted on 5/13/15 at 2:07 pm to shel311
Ah so big baby and Hawes are better defenders than Paul. I'll have to save this link.
Deandre Jordan 2.19
Glen Davis 1.98
Matt Barnes 1.91
Spencer Hawes 1
Chris Paul 0.82
Ekpe Udoh 0.22
J.J. Redick -0.24
Hedo Turkoglu -0.56
Blake Griffin -0.62
Austin Rivers -1.54
Jamal Crawford -3.25
Deandre Jordan 2.19
Glen Davis 1.98
Matt Barnes 1.91
Spencer Hawes 1
Chris Paul 0.82
Ekpe Udoh 0.22
J.J. Redick -0.24
Hedo Turkoglu -0.56
Blake Griffin -0.62
Austin Rivers -1.54
Jamal Crawford -3.25
Posted on 5/13/15 at 2:10 pm to Boomshockalocka
quote:Sure thing Buddy
no I don't
Page 130 of 141
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News