Dis-respect - Spida is taking notes (as usual).

[NAOS]

Also if the blowouts helped Conley's stats they should help the rest of the team. It's pretty fair to look at the team in the series and see which stats show who helped the most in that series.

So the stats are equally meaningless, or...?

 

[NAOS]

Then they did a good job since the team played the same or better defense with him in the court and much better offense with him on the court. Which means the net result was he improved us the second most of any player in this series. Much bigger issues then him in this series. Although we still played pretty well.

Maybe you could argue he gets paid too much for what he gives us, we gave up too much to get him, or we could trade him for a better fit. But I don't see any evidence of your claim.

The evidence is on tape. Go watch the games again.

 

[Ron Mexico]

So the stats are equally meaningless, or...?

No, they represent what happened in the series well. You have a narrative and are trying hard to justify it.

 

[LoPo]

He didn’t guard Murray a lot because he was the last guy on the roster Q wanted to see on him. And so the whole defense was shifted out of position, with DM and MC guarding significantly taller players and Royce or Joe shifted down to Murray. Disaster ensued, of course.

The stats for that series are all super skewed because of the two blowout games (and Conley played in the most gruesome one), so I don’t put much stock in them.

Conley had a good offensive series. But he was the rot at the heart of the rotten defense.

I agree. Conley's stats looked great, but his plus stats came primarily in games 3 and 4 when we destroyed Denver as a team. Most everybody's stats looked great in games 3 and 4.

If Games 5, 6, and 7, Conley didn't dominate on offense while his defense was a liability. Malone started Morris who was able to trouble Conley enough to make him mainly irrelevant.



Sent from my SM-G970U using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[NAOS]

No, they represent what happened in the series well. You have a narrative and are trying hard to justify it.

You also have a narrative. It starts with the absurd assumption that the game can be reduced to statistics. And, to make matters worse, the version of statistics you seem to be pushing is one that doesn’t seem to acknowledge what and outlier is even when an enormous one is starting it in the face.

Please gtfo with any presumption that you don’t also have a narrative here; or that I’m down the rabbit hole of some Hater thing. A narrative begins the moment you start using words + syntax.

 

[One Brow]

I agree. Conley's stats looked great, but his plus stats came primarily in games 3 and 4 when we destroyed Denver as a team. Most everybody's stats looked great in games 3 and 4.

If Games 5, 6, and 7, Conley didn't dominate on offense while his defense was a liability. Malone started Morris who was able to trouble Conley enough to make him mainly irrelevant.

So, you are making the argument that if you look up his BPM only in games 5-7, it will be significantly worse than Ingles/Royce/(someone else)? Is this strictly an "eye test" thing?

 

[One Brow]

You also have a narrative. It starts with the absurd assumption that the game can be reduced to statistics. And, to make matters worse, the version of statistics you seem to be pushing is one that doesn’t seem to acknowledge what and outlier is even when an enormous one is starting it in the face.

Please gtfo with any presumption that you don’t also have a narrative here; or that I’m down the rabbit hole of some Hater thing. A narrative begins the moment you start using words + syntax.

I agree the game can't be reduced to statistics, and I'm sure you agree it can't be reduced to an eye test either. So, what do we look at when we see (looking just at games 5 through 7), that Conley has positive statistics while failing your eye test?

 

[NAOS]

I agree the game can't be reduced to statistics, and I'm sure you agree it can't be reduced to an eye test either. So, what do we look at when we see (looking just at games 5 through 7), that Conley has positive statistics while failing your eye test?

I’ve been very clear about that. Right from the tip, the defense is contorted in a way that’s meant to hide Conley (take him off the opposing PG, who’s typically either the primary or secondary point-of-attack). This contortion shifts at least two players into matchups that are likely to create disadvantages for the whole defense.

 

[One Brow]

I’ve been very clear about that. Right from the tip, the defense is contorted in a way that’s meant to hide Conley (take him off the opposing PG, who’s typically either the primary or secondary point-of-attack). This contortion shifts at least two players into matchups that are likely to create disadvantages for the whole defense.

I agree. This does not make his presence a net negative.

 

[Ron Mexico]

You also have a narrative. It starts with the absurd assumption that the game can be reduced to statistics. And, to make matters worse, the version of statistics you seem to be pushing is one that doesn’t seem to acknowledge what and outlier is even when an enormous one is starting it in the face.

Please gtfo with any presumption that you don’t also have a narrative here; or that I’m down the rabbit hole of some Hater thing. A narrative begins the moment you start using words + syntax.

Haha, oof.

It's not just stats, there is also what I saw but stats back that up.

There's many bigger reasons for us losing than him. He was a positive for us in that series. Others were not and lack of depth hurt a lot, as other issues. This doesn't mean he's perfect or there aren't issues with Conley.

 

[NAOS]

Haha, oof.

It's not just stats, there is also what I saw but stats back that up.

There's many bigger reasons for us losing than him. He was a positive for us in that series. Others were not and lack of depth hurt a lot, as other issues. This doesn't mean he's perfect or there aren't issues with Conley.

What were your bigger reasons?

 

[Ron Mexico]

What were your bigger reasons?

Lack of depth is probably the biggest. Having niang, Morgan, and bradley as your bench is rough. Missing one of our best player was next. Poor team defense is up there and having many negative players on defense. Denver having incredibly hot shooting way beyond their averages even on open shots. Political situation where things dramatically changed for us in the series after the league shut down. Having Royce be your primary wing defender when he wasn't good at all guarding Murray. Trying to hide multiple players on defense is up there. Conley isn't the only one. I'm sure there are others. We could list the entire roster as individuals as well and there are more than 3 people worse than Conley on our roster that are a bigger part of losing.

 

[NAOS]

Lack of depth is probably the biggest. Having niang, Morgan, and bradley as your bench is rough. Missing one of our best player was next. Poor team defense is up there and having many negative players on defense. Denver having incredibly hot shooting way beyond their averages even on open shots. Political situation where things dramatically changed for us in the series after the league shut down. Having Royce be your primary wing defender when he wasn't good at all guarding Murray. Trying to hide multiple players on defense is up there. Conley isn't the only one. I'm sure there are others. We could list the entire roster as individuals as well and there are more than 3 people worse than Conley on our roster that are a bigger part of losing.

The end of this post isn’t very convincing. You’re sure there are others we were trying to hide on defense? Whom? And how much less significant are those players than someone in the starting and closing lineups? For example, Niang isn’t a good defender, but when you weigh the importance of his role and the number of minutes he plays, then he slides way behind Conley on the list of concerns. Bradley wasn’t good, but we didn’t hide him and he didn’t play many minutes. Etc.

A lot of your other points point back to Conley and/or what it took to put him on this team. I feel like you’ve only gotta follow through on most of your own arguments, rewatch the games, and then you’ll basically be in agreement with my position.

 

[Ron Mexico]

The end of this post isn’t very convincing. You’re sure there are others we were trying to hide on defense? Whom? And how much less significant are those players than someone in the starting and closing lineups? For example, Niang isn’t a good defender, but when you weigh the importance of his role and the number of minutes he plays, then he slides way behind Conley on the list of concerns. Bradley wasn’t good, but we didn’t hide him and he didn’t play many minutes. Etc.

A lot of your other points point back to Conley and/or what it took to put him on this team. I feel like you’ve only gotta follow through on most of your own arguments, rewatch the games, and then you’ll basically be in agreement with my position.

You are reaching deep on this one if you're trying to tie Conley to what our roster is/lack of depth. Missing hard on Davis and Green isn't his fault. Having one of our best players out for the series isn't his fault. What we traded for him isn't his fault and doesn't reflect his play in this series. I already mentioned to you players we tried to hide. We tried to hide Mitchell to keep him fresh. We tried to hide Clarkson. Niang does make that list but maybe less so, but he hurt is in other ways and wasn't positive. Him being in the court was a negative along with our entire bench.

I don't have any interest in rewatching the series. I'm aware Conley had issues. I'm 100% positive he isn't one one of the main 3 reasons we lost. Your entire argument is that your eyes saw his defense was so bad it shifted everything. That's fine except the fact it didn't change when he didn't play. The evidence shows he was a positive impact. That's what I saw despite flaws. But I'll leave you on your hill to die. This has reached a circular argument.

 

[NAOS]

You are reaching deep on this one if you're trying to tie Conley to what our roster is/lack of depth. Missing hard on Davis and Green isn't his fault. Having one of our best players out for the series isn't his fault. What we traded for him isn't his fault and doesn't reflect his play in this series. I already mentioned to you players we tried to hide. We tried to hide Mitchell to keep him fresh. We tried to hide Clarkson. Niang does make that list but maybe less so, but he hurt is in other ways and wasn't positive. Him being in the court was a negative along with our entire bench.

I don't have any interest in rewatching the series. I'm aware Conley had issues. I'm 100% positive he isn't one one of the main 3 reasons we lost. Your entire argument is that your eyes saw his defense was so bad it shifted everything. That's fine except the fact it didn't change when he didn't play. The evidence shows he was a positive impact. That's what I saw despite flaws. But I'll leave you on your hill to die. This has reached a circular argument.

I guess it becomes circular when you get lapped?

My hill to die on. Lol. Your rhetoric can be really cringe-worthy.