Zach Lavine's rise to greatness

[NAOS]

You are the troll.

Apparently you never got the gist of the thread. It's to predict Zach Lavine will become a really good player. So how do you propose I come up with evidence to prove that?

I don't need to post his stats either. Stop being lazy. Go look at them yourself. He had a quite a few good games last year. Especially in the month of April. Why don't you post his April stats and tell me how they mean he sucks?

lol. You suck so hard it's crazy. Am I supposed to teach you how to put together an argument?

 

[Hotdog]

lol. You suck so hard it's crazy. Am I supposed to teach you how to put together an argument?

Alright, fine. You want hardcore "evidence" that Zach Lavine will be a star? NAOS style?

Without out a doubt, this proves Zach Lavine will be great, since numbers are the only thing that matters.

In the month of April last years, as a rookie, this is what Zach Lavine averaged

21.1 ppg
6.6 assists
5.8 rebounds
47% FG
88% FT


Those are Allstar guard like numbers. Bad team or not. It's not unheard of that good players have been on bad teams either. So that argument is dead in the water.


My stats>NAOS stats

I win argument

 

[NAOS]

Alright, fine. You want hardcore "evidence" that Zach Lavine will be a star? NAOS style?

Without out a doubt, this proves Zach Lavine will be great, since numbers are the only thing that matters.

In the month of April last years, as a rookie, this is what Zach Lavine averaged

21.1 ppg
6.6 assists
5.8 rebounds
47% FG
88% FT


Those are Allstar guard like numbers. Bad team or not. It's not unheard of that good players have been on bad teams either. So that argument is dead in the water.

Ok. I see your evidence, Hack.

I've looked at some other claims, and the evidence used to support them. And, together with yours, I don't think they are very conclusive about Zach's future.

I see a guy who's totally over-matched on the defensive side of the ball. It isn't "hating" to call him bad on defense. He is. He has a ton of mental lapses, which is troubling.

On offense, I see a track star. Uber-athlete who isn't very good at playing Winning Basketball, 5-on-5, in the NBA. His athleticism will give him an advantage, and it sounds like he is a hard worker, but it is definitely not a forgone conclusion that he'll be what you are saying he will be.

If he figures it out, you'll have gotten lucky. You're taking a bet on a young horse who is obviously uncomfortable in the gate.

You've gotten dazzled by the flashiness. And, like a blind squirrel who finds a nut, you might get one "right."

 

[NAOS]

I also like how you're trying to hedge your bets by saying, essentially, "His team may continue to be bad, bro... so you can't hate on him for that."

Guess what? If I think he's playing a big part in his team being bad, then I can certainly criticize him for it.

 

[Hotdog]

I also like how you're trying to hedge your bets by saying, essentially, "His team may continue to be bad, bro... so you can't hate on him for that."

Guess what? If I think he's playing a big part in his team being bad, then I can certainly criticize him for it.

Wtf. Are you serious?

Of course his team might be bad. It's a super young team. There actually should be no expectation of them being any good. But that doesn't mean they aren't loaded with stars and will be good at some point. Just like how the Thunder were really bad with both Durant and Westbrook on the team.

Why do you have so much trouble understanding is?

 

[NAOS]

Wtf. Are you serious?

Of course his team might be bad. It's a super young team. There actually should be no expectation of them being any good. But that doesn't mean they aren't loaded with stars and will be good at some point. Just like how the Thunder were really bad with both Durant and Westbrook on the team.

Why do you have so much trouble understanding is?

have you seized the least significant part of any argument I've made in an attempt to start fighting (and losing) again??

 

[NAOS]

I can't wait for Hacl to write another post and sign off as "Dumbass" again.

Jody, are you getting all of this?

 

[Hotdog]

have you seized the least significant part of any argument I've made in an attempt to start fighting (and losing) again??

Anytime you get proven wrong you just try talk about something else.


Just like you'll do here again.

For the millionth time, is real plus minus effected by teamates?

You constantly avoid discussing this because it's the only argument you come up with and it sucks, and you know it does.

But again, there will be no response by you to discuss this. Because you know I'm right.

Bring it NAOS. Stop ducking it. It's weak.

 

[NAOS]

Anytime you get proven wrong you just try talk about something else.


Just like you'll do here again.

For the millionth time, is real plus minus effected by teamates?

You constantly avoid discussing this because it's the only argument you come up with and it sucks, and you know it does.

But again, there will be no response by you to discuss this. Because you know I'm right.

Bring it NAOS. Stop ducking it. It's weak.

RPM is just one stat I brought up -- and stats are only a part of my evidence overall. Why are you seizing on that right now? What are you trying to prove?


I hope this little exercise is helpful to you. You certainly seem to be pushing through a lot of shame. That's good.

 

[Hotdog]

RPM is just one stat I brought up -- and stats are only a part of my evidence overall. Why are you seizing on that right now? What are you trying to prove?


I hope this little exercise is helpful to you. You certainly seem to be pushing through a lot of shame. That's good.

Lol

Again. Ducked the question.

Hilarious. You actually believe I can't see what you are doing.

 

[NAOS]

The stats I quoted suggest: last year, he a bad team worse.

Ok then.

Now answer me: what are you trying to prove right now?

 

[NAOS]

Hacl,

I think you need to hear some Basketball Analytics 101:

Axiom #1: There is no action a basketball player can take which isn't somehow affected by the play of his teammates.

Some actions are less affected than others. For example, a guard's ability to stay in front of his man on defense isn't as affected as, say, his success at team defense. For example, free-throw shooting is much less affected than, say, finishing at the rim. But, nevertheless, all actions are somehow affected.

AXIOM #2: (a) If all actions are affected, then there will be no statistical representation of a player's individual action which isn't "polluted by" or "alloyed to" the play of another player. (b) All statistics of individual performance are skewed by team-play in ways that are NOT revealed by the statistic itself.

CONCLUSION:

When you demand to know if RPM or any other statistic is "effected" by teammates, then you are revealing your ignorance. The answer is "Yes, just like every other statistic.... So what's your point?"

What you don't seem to realize is that RPM and the other stats I listed make it easy for the analyst to acknowledge to affect of teammates. They allow us to say "It looks like Zach LaVine made a bad team worse."


Does this help?