Hilltop wrote:Your last question is utterly irrelevant. In fact, I have no idea why you even bother asking us to enumerate why Vince isn't the greatest, when there was never such an assertion in this thread. It was never implied so cut the bull.
It was a clear exaggeration of facts, but if you would actually analyze the situation you would realize that you remove the hyperbole and actually understand what I am saying, you wouldn't need to write a long post full of nothing.
So I will re post my question in a more direct way.
Using statistics, is there anything that Carter is below average at? And if there isn't, then why isn't he a more successful player?
Hilltop wrote:And about statistics being flawed, give me a break man. I have never been one to live and die by statistics a la Hollinger, and I certainly know that they have their limitations. Nevertheless, your dismissal of statistics as inaccurate is hilarious. I've seen you bring up statistics to back up your points on numerous occasions and on many different threads and now because they favor Vince (the guy you hate with a passion), we must take them with a grain of salt?
The thing is that usually when a statistic is flawed. For example, my PER comparison was flawed and somebody actually points out why, I admit it(you seem to have ignored the post in the other topic regarding Bosh and Carter), or I use a different statistic to prove my point.
Hilltop wrote:It's also funny that how after you downplay whatever favors Carter, you quickly you revert to making excuses and justification for Jackson's rebounding numbers. But please, don't even begin to insinuate that Jackson is somehow being "marginalized" by the role/position he plays and Carter is enjoying some sort of invisible advantage which thus make his RPG superior.
Rubbish. It is what it is Hobo, being defensive about these details is just you grasping straws now. Give it up.
And what exactly is the problem with what I said in that paragraph?
Hilltop wrote:As far as Carter's playmaking ability is concerned, I am hardly basing this comparison on statistics alone. That is one thing (and it is far from invalid), but anyone who has watched a good deal of Carter's play knows that the numbers don't lie. If you are insinuating that he is supposed to be a horrible/poor passer, then you're right, maybe you shouldn't get started with that because it would be stupid.
Ok, I will take your word for it.
Hilltop wrote:You're an intelligent poster and I can tell from your posts, but your deep-seated hatred for Carter has clouded your judgment terribly. It has become apparent that an objective discussion about him is impossible with you. There is absolutely nothing you will concede even if the facts, statistics, and historical anecdotes are right in front of you.
I will concede certain things. If people are using flawed arguments they deserve to be called out on it. Using career numbers like a lot of people have been using here in this comparison makes absolutely no sense and yet, despite you trying to be the King of Logic, you ignore this fact.