MGB8 wrote: GoBlue72391 wrote:
Um, how about you don't excerpt a portion of a post of mine without noting that you modified it (and eliminating the context)? In other words, don't accuse someone who likely knows a good bit more than you for "lacking" knowledge while using deceptive editing to do so. The entire post was:
Because it's irrelevant to the part I'm discussing. If I'm discussing a chapter in a book I'm going to quote that chapter, not the entire book. No amount of context could rationalize a statement like "Lauri is a symptom and cause of everything wrong with the present Bulls team." I'm not even going to address the "I'm smarter than you" bit.
It was in response to the suggestion that Lauri should be put back in the starting lineup.
The point wasn't that Lauri was causing the Bulls to play badly - something quite clear in context. The point was that Lauri should not be put back into the starting lineup because he was/is "the softest player on a soft team" --- "[a] guy whose effort is primarily dependent on how it's going that night or what role he is being allowed to play."
First of all PWill is the softest player on the team, not Lauri, though he is a close second. You can try to backtrack and explain it away by saying "all I meant was he shouldn't start", but pinning all of our team's issues on a single player is just ridiculous. You flat out said "Lauri is a symptom and cause of everything wrong with the present Bulls team" but now you're trying to say you didn't mean it like that. How do you expect anyone to interpret that statement? The context doesn't help. I don't care if you think he should or should not be re-inserted into the starting lineup. There's valid arguments to be made for either case, so believing Lauri should remain on the bench is not what I'm concerned with.
Rewarding that lack of mental toughness and lack of consistent effort, rather than letting him earn a starting role, is exactly the opposite of what needed to be done. Thankfully, Donovan didn't listen because we've seen a bit more effort from Lauri from the bench lately - and that's what's needed, not just for him, but for the entire team. For players to earn their time and role based on how hard they work and play, and how effective it is.
But that's what we've been doing with PWill all season long, yet you chose to single out Lauri as the "symptom and cause of everything wrong with the present Bulls team." For the record, I would be saying the same thing if you had used any other player in place of Lauri for the "symptom and cause of everything wrong with the present Bulls team." Even if you thought Lauri was the worst player in the league, and I'm not claiming you do, it would still be ridiculous to blame an entire team's problems on one player.
You deliberately slashed a quote without noting that you had edited it in order to create a straw man by engaging in a statement outside of its context. That's actually a reportable violation on RealGM - there was even a recent thread from the lead moderators on it on the general forum. I mention that not because I would do that (lame), but to underscore the point that it's widely understood to be deceptive misconduct.
Like I said, I don't believe the rest of the post was relevant to the one point I wanted to discuss. I read it multiple times, and as far as I'm concerned the context didn't help clarify anything regarding the "Lauri is a symptom and cause of everything wrong with the present Bulls team" statement. Only after you responded to me did you clarify your meaning with that statement, because that meaning and context wasn't there to begin with.
I didn't do it to be intentionally misleading or to take things out of context, I did it to simplify my response instead of having ginormous blobs of irrelevant text to wade through (like this current response). I don't feel what I did took anything out of context, but you obviously do. That wasn't my intention. If you feel I violated RealGM rules then by all means you should report me, because that is the appropriate response to rule breaking.
The context was clear --- both in terms of what was being responded to and the whole of the response.
I vehemently disagree.
If it wasn't, then you wouldn't have felt the need to eliminate that context and thus enable your pot shot --- for whatever emotional reason you felt the need to take that deceptive tact.
Like I said, I did it to simplify my response. As I type this response, I'm having to sift through huge chunks of text that are no longer relevant to what we're discussing. I don't see it as a potshot or an emotional response, I see it as an appropriate response to anyone blaming any single player for an entire team's problems. Obviously you've since clarified that wasn't what you meant, but again, that wasn't apparent until you responded to me.
Meanwhile, as to Pat Williams being mentally soft - there are huge differences between him and Lauri - that point to Lauri being a much bigger "soft" issue.
I disagree. As timid, passive, and unaggressive as Lauri indeed is, he's still considerably more aggressive and confident in his play than PWill is. Even when Lauri was a rookie, he was much more aggressive than PWill is as a rookie right now. If anything, Lauri is less aggressive now than he was as a rookie. Lauri has at least shown flashes of aggression and confidence for extended lengths of time. PWill hasn't.
First, Pat is a 19 year old rookie, not a 3rd year player.
I understand and that is relevant to an extent, but like I said, when Lauri was a rookie he was much more aggressive than PWill is as a rookie right now.
Second, Pat was never being asked to be a primary offensive player this season, while Lauri was; Pat may not have exceeded his role, but Lauri shrank from his.
The first part is a valid point, but the second is not. When Lauri was given the touches of a top 2 option he produced. The stats reflect that. Lauri shrinks when his role is reduced, not the other way around. As for PWill, he's basically been Keith Bogans this season. That's far more than simply "not exceeding his role." Even with his limited role as the 5th option in the starting lineup, he's still been incredibly passive.
Third, while Pat's production has fluctuated, his effort level has been pretty steady.
His production hasn't fluctuated at all really. Just look at his monthly splits. They've all been between 9, 4 and 1 to 11, 6, and 1 with a virtually identical TS%. The one exception is this month where his scoring and rebounding have taken a dip to 7.1 and 3.8 but his APG and TS% have taken a slight tick up. He's pretty much been the same player all season. Very consistent actually. As for his effort level, it's been piss poor pretty much all season long. Bordering on shameful.
The fact that a guy who was a college reserve isn't a spectacular as a rookie after being thrust into a starting role as a "glue guy" defensive role player doesn't make him soft.
You're absolutely correct. The things he does on the court, or rather doesn't do, is what makes him soft.
Lauri, on the other hand, you see huge swings not just in production but in effort, depending on gameplan and whether other folks were getting him involved.
I agree. You won't hear any argument from me on this one, other than (very) recently I think he's been better with his effort level regardless of his offensive role.
So Pat's issue isn't being "soft" so much as a lack of alpha-type aggression. Lauri also lacks that --- but has an extra failing of seeing his effort impacted by things he doesn't really control. WCJ has a similar issue.
That's just a different way to describe the same thing IMO. At least Lauri shows a high effort level on occasion and has been doing so recently. PWill on the other hand has put in a consistently poor effort all season long.