TimRobbins wrote:Every single player on the court affects other players.
yep. but not even lebron james has enough intangibles to produce the kind of secondary effects you seem to think j.r. smith has. j.r. is like the poor man's melo: a talented scorer but a ballstopper. take away his scoring and he's probably a liability to an offense. which means that he's affecting teammates negatively. so yeah, he's affecting other players all right, just not in the way that supports your argument
the same people that recognize that j.r. smith is not a good defender (pretty much all fans and front offices) recognize that j.r. smith is not a guy who makes teammates better. take a poll if you don't believe me
Don't sell your brillinat math skills and keen analytical mind short. It takes absolute brillinace to claim that if you take out a .660 TS% guy and replace him with a D-leaguer, "somebody will make shots" and other players will not be affected by it
didn't say that and haven't said it for several pages now. please re-read. but the rest of the team could panic and start soiling themselves on the court due to j.r.'s absence and it STILL wouldn't have the dramatic effect on scoring that you think it would
we can now replace so many players with D-Leaguers and "sombody will make shots".
we could, but the team would be much worse. still wouldn't be scoring anywhere close to half the points the current team scores, which you seem to think would happen and is an absurd suggestion
the D-league caliber sixers were the worst offense in the league and still had on offensive rating of 95.5. the warriors had an offensive rating of 111.6. that's a difference of
LESS THAN 20%!replacing j.r. smith and his 18 ppg with any professional wing will not cut that number in half, let alone take away 54 points over 4 games (which the cavs outscored the hawks by). it just won't. i'm not sure any player in the league affects a point spread by as much as 10 points a game. but that kind of false reality is what is necessary for your "opinions" to be valid. yes, you could have reduced j.r.'s offensive output by
FIFTY percent and the cavs still would have been the better team against the hawks
so...the warriors were a mere 20% better than D-league offense (20% more output). but you think j.r. smith was more than 100% better (DOUBLE the output) than a D-league wing would have been against the hawks?
it's as if you think it was prime michael jordan being replaced by a high school player
the donald, always unpopular, did worse in EVERY state in 2020. and by a greater margin in red states! 50 independently-run elections, none of them rigged