Zach Lavine's rise to greatness

[Saint Cy of JFC]

https://grantland.com/the-triangle/...avine-gets-the-nod-while-martin-takes-a-seat/

Good LaVine/Martin article.

 

[NAOS]

https://grantland.com/the-triangle/...avine-gets-the-nod-while-martin-takes-a-seat/

Good LaVine/Martin article.

just came here to post that. Obviously LaVine is destined for greatness. All of last year's stats demonstrate it. Every one of them.

 

[Hotdog]

https://grantland.com/the-triangle/...avine-gets-the-nod-while-martin-takes-a-seat/

Good LaVine/Martin article.

just came here to post that. Obviously LaVine is destined for greatness. All of last year's stats demonstrate it. Every one of them.

You two are hilarious.

That article sucked.

Here's basically what is says...

Zach Lavine sucks because people like his jumping ability and flashiness, but he might still be good. Kevin Martin sucks too, but he's also really good. Maybe he should be traded. Maybe not. Maybe he should play in front of Lavine. Maybe not. Lavine sucks. Maybe. I'm not sure. Maybe not. We'll see what he's got.

Great. Thanks Zach.l Lowe. What an insightful riveting hopper hater article. You sound like the girlfriend of NAOS.

 

[Miggs]

You two are hilarious.

That article sucked.

Here's basically what is says...

Zach Lavine sucks because people like his jumping ability and flashiness, but he might still be good. Kevin Martin sucks too, but he's also really good. Maybe he should be traded. Maybe not. Maybe he should play in front of Lavine. Maybe not. Lavine sucks. Maybe. I'm not sure. Maybe not. We'll see what he's got.

Great. Thanks Zach.l Lowe. What an insightful riveting hopper hater article. You sound like the girlfriend of NAOS.

It actually was fairly insightful. You just chose to ignore the cold-hard facts about how ****ty Lavine was last year.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I thought Hack would like it, it was rather pro-Lavine I thought.

 

[NAOS]

It actually was fairly insightful. You just chose to ignore the cold-hard facts about how ****ty Lavine was last year.

Not how Hacl see it. Only Hacl sees through to the truth. Zach Lowe don't know ****. All stats are damned lies.

 

[Hotdog]

It actually was fairly insightful. You just chose to ignore the cold-hard facts about how ****ty Lavine was last year.

I thought Hack would like it, it was rather pro-Lavine I thought.

So was it pro Lavine or not?

There are two different opinions right here.

It's exactly what I said it was. A flip flop NAOS-esque sit on the fence opinion. Except hes more hating on him, but covering his ***. He over exaggerates his deficiencies too.

I don't find that insightful. Lavine was a rookie. And compared to most rookies, had a pretty good year. His hateful piece of writing is a stuck in the present sack of garbage. Instead of seeing his potential, he chooses to focus on the negativity instead. It's just not how I look at players. I choose to look at the potential. People in this world are way too quick to write off a young player. It's down right dumb to do so. People get better most of the time. It happens year in and year out.

 

[NAOS]

So was it pro Lavine or not?

There are two different opinions right here.

It's exactly what I said it was. A flip flop NAOS-esque sit on the fence opinion. Except hes more hating on him, but covering his ***. He over exaggerates his deficiencies too.

I don't find that insightful. Lavine was a rookie. And compared to most rookies, had a pretty good year. His hateful piece of writing is a stuck in the present sack of garbage. Instead of seeing his potential, he chooses to focus on the negativity instead. It's just not how I look at players. I choose to look at the potential. People in this world are way too quick to write off a young player. It's down right dumb to do so. People get better most of the time. It happens year in and year out.

you should be able to support this claim with evidence.

 

[Hotdog]

Not how Hacl see it. Only Hacl sees through to the truth. Zach Lowe don't know ****. All stats are damned lies.

What stats are you even talking about? His real plus minus? You really hung up on that? You really think that means anything. How do you not understand that they are stats that are dramatically effected by who your teamates are, who your coaches are? All of that. His personal statistics were just fine for a rookie. They actually like pretty spectacular in some games. Why aren't you talking about those? It's because you are retard who thinks you can win an argument with garbage. Just find some number that makes him look bad, and ignore all the factors.

 

[Hotdog]

you should be able to support this claim with evidence.

He was far better than Exum, and I bet you think Exum will be good. Exum was pretty bad as a rookie. So he out played him and was drafted lower.

 

[NAOS]

He was far better than Exum, and I bet you think Exum will be good. Exum was pretty bad as a rookie. So he out played him and was drafted lower.

What stats are you even talking about? His real plus minus? You really hung up on that? You really think that means anything. How do you not understand that they are stats that are dramatically effected by who your teamates are, who your coaches are? All of that. His personal statistics were just fine for a rookie. They actually like pretty spectacular in some games. Why aren't you talking about those? It's because you are retard who thinks you can win an argument with garbage. Just find some number that makes him look bad, and ignore all the factors.

so, No?... you can't support with evidence?

 

[NAOS]

Exum was a plus-defender as a 19-year old... every metric supports that. That's not nothing. There were a string of games where he had the 5th best Stay-In-Front percentage of any guard in the NBA.