Like I said, being stupid intentionally (I don’t believe you are actually that stupid) does not have the effect you think it does. If it’s so obvious, then you wouldn’t have to do dumb **** like that.
The Non-Jazz NBA Thread in the Jazz Section
- Thread starter Handlogten's Heros
- Start date
Like I said, being stupid intentionally (I don’t believe you are actually that stupid) does not have the effect you think it does. If it’s so obvious, then you wouldn’t have to do dumb **** like that.
It’s no longer viable in today’s NBA to have someone so non-factor on offense on the floor at the end of games imo.
When you can’t score down the stretch it puts so much pressure on your other guys to do it, not to mention the lack of spacing for them too.
I’m not even commenting on your disagreement, that stat nerd in me just knows stupidity when I see it. Gotta call it out.
You can’t denounce a stat by using in an intentionally stupid way that is completely different than how it was presented in the first place. It would be like saying 3FG% is dumb because Jokic was 1-5.
That's the strangest take. You can with the same confidence say that the game has never been close and has been a complete blowout by Denver except for... (insert any two stretches when Minnesota scored several points in a row).
Is it strange to point out the swing points in the game? Is it not ok to talk about which lineups worked and which did not?
Yeah, very strange.
When it's directly attributable to a rare lineup decision in a big playoff game (all bench players vs several Nuggets starters for a couple minutes) and a literal 8 points in 20 seconds run, I think it's fair to do.
You sound super smart right now. Fact is Anthony Edwards is only a +1 for the series. What does that mean?
I think the 8 points in 20 seances….Wolves just got to accept that they blew it but I guess that’s part of the game.
The all bench unit, that was a critical, avoidable coaching mistake that should never ever happen. I don’t think that should be off limits to talk about.
It means you are doubling down on the stupid and you are not worth discussing with.
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Being so stupid people don’t want to engage is effective, I’ll give you that.
People on Twitter are saying Edwards is effectively a net zero to the Timberwolves championship equity this series due to his plus minus being a +1. I just wanted to see how far you guys would go defending that stat.
I genuinely don’t understand how I’m using the stat wrong. Gobert is a +8 for the series and Ant is a +1. Does that mean Gobert has a higher impact on winning?