CHA/UTA/CLE/PHI

mcfly1204 · Post #101 » by **mcfly1204** » Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:44 am

eliasrapp98 wrote:Not too good for a guy that isn't a great defender at all.

I find it very difficult to take you seriously.

eliasrapp98 · Post #102 » by **eliasrapp98** » Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:45 am

mcfly1204 wrote:
eliasrapp98 wrote:Not too good for a guy that isn't a great defender at all.

I find it very difficult to take you seriously.

So he's a great defender in your book?

No Offense · Post #103 » by **No Offense** » Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:49 am

HartfordWhalers wrote:The point that people have been trying to make is that saying Young's value will be judged by his team's success when he is on the team with the least talent in the league seems incredibly foolish.

The argument is simplistic at best, and again pretty clearly flawed. But if you insist to stick with it, then you need to apply to to Varejao and not just Young.

Cavs winning percentage with Varejao last season 20%.
Cavs winning percentage without Varejao last season 33%.

Applying you logic, we have seen exactly how valuable Varejao is and that is that he makes teams worse. However, I would argue that that is a dumb argument, when made for both Young and Varejao.

You should probably look at the Cavs' schedule during games that he played before blaming him for their decreased winning percentage with him. In addition, the Cavs made a trade around January 20th. They traded Jon Leuer for Marreese Speights and Wayne Ellington. It's very possible that the Cavs actually started winning at a higher percentage because of the addition of an actual bench as opposed to a guy who averaged 14, 14 and 3 being injured.

That was sarcasm, btw.

Let's look 2007-2008. That is the year Varejao had a contract dispute and missed the first 21 games of the season. The Cavs were 10-12. They were in the midst of a 6 game losing streak. After Varejao came back and up until the Cavs made that big trade on February 22, they went 20-12.

I omitted the games after that trade because I didn't want to be accused of having the win percentage be spurious in nature because they got rid of dead weight and replaced it with better players.

Post #104 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:15 am

No, no excuses. We are using your simplified argument and we are sticking with it.

rjgraca wrote:This season will be a true indicator of the value of PER with Young being counted on to be a major option. Antwaan Jamison, similar player to Young, for the most part always had good PERs too and that didn't seem to be much of an impact to the Cavs a couple of seasons ago which I suspect will be what will happen to Young this season where those offensive stats won't seem so impressive.

Sure,we could instead look at things like:
Thad on the court: -0.6 points per 100 possessions.
Thad off the court: -8.7 points per 100 possessions.

But instead, we should look at the Sixers expected win total next season (ignoring that it will obviously include the effects of the rest of the roster), because it will prove he doesn't help a team win? :lol:

Also, when trying to prove a player helps a team win, its probably best to find something more recent than 07-08. You know, then you look better when being sarcastic.

No Offense · Post #105 » by **No Offense** » Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:00 am

Did somebody seriously say that Varejao isn't a good defender?

You can't reason with somebody whose knowledge of the NBA is so centered around their favorite team that they honestly don't know that Varejao is a defensive specialist.

HornetJail · Post #106 » by **HornetJail** » Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:31 am

eliasrapp98 wrote:
No Offense wrote:
eliasrapp98 wrote:Sorry. Ended up going out and just got back recently. I really don't feel like proving this to you though. Thad did have a great 25 game stretch, but I don't think a 25 game stretch is a good sample size so it'd be hypocritical for me to use it.

I'll take this as a win.

If you don't want to find a 25 game streak as good as 14, 14 and 3 (which you already told me you would do), I beg you to find 82 games as good as Varejao's last 3 years.

1. I didn't say 14 and 14. I said 17 and 9 or something like that. Also one of those years Andy averaged 8 PPG. Not too good for a guy that isn't a great defender at all.

I didn't want to do it.

But you made me do it.

Here it is...

Post #107 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:47 am

Biz Gilwalker wrote:
(crazy image here)

I have no idea what you just posted. (But Varejao is a good defender.)

Post #108 » by **Foshan** » Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:49 am

I can't believe this thread is still alive, somebody just put it out of its misery. No one likes the original deal and its just a fan argument of my favorite under rated player is better than your favorite under rated player.

Post #109 » by **TheOUTLAW** » Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:54 am

What the heck is the meaning of that picture?

the_process · Post #110 » by **the_process** » Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:00 am

Just to stoke the fires, Cavs fans will never let this die.

Post #111 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:02 am

oyoyer wrote:Just to stoke the fires, Sixers fans will never let this die.

It cuts both ways.

Foshan wrote:I can't believe this thread is still alive, somebody just put it out of its misery. No one likes the original deal and its just a fan argument of my favorite under rated player is better than your favorite under rated player.

Sounds about right.

eliasrapp98 · Post #112 » by **eliasrapp98** » Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:19 am

People says he a good defender, but whenever I watch I don't see it.

eliasrapp98 · Post #113 » by **eliasrapp98** » Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:21 am

No Offense wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:The point that people have been trying to make is that saying Young's value will be judged by his team's success when he is on the team with the least talent in the league seems incredibly foolish.

The argument is simplistic at best, and again pretty clearly flawed. But if you insist to stick with it, then you need to apply to to Varejao and not just Young.

Cavs winning percentage with Varejao last season 20%.
Cavs winning percentage without Varejao last season 33%.

Applying you logic, we have seen exactly how valuable Varejao is and that is that he makes teams worse. However, I would argue that that is a dumb argument, when made for both Young and Varejao.

You should probably look at the Cavs' schedule during games that he played before blaming him for their decreased winning percentage with him. In addition, the Cavs made a trade around January 20th. They traded Jon Leuer for Marreese Speights and Wayne Ellington. It's very possible that the Cavs actually started winning at a higher percentage because of the addition of an actual bench as opposed to a guy who averaged 14, 14 and 3 being injured.

That was sarcasm, btw.

Let's look 2007-2008. That is the year Varejao had a contract dispute and missed the first 21 games of the season. The Cavs were 10-12. They were in the midst of a 6 game losing streak. After Varejao came back and up until the Cavs made that big trade on February 22, they went 20-12.

I omitted the games after that trade because I didn't want to be accused of having the win percentage be spurious in nature because they got rid of dead weight and replaced it with better players.

07-08? That was so far back ago that T-Mac and Ming were still playing at high levels and Michael Redd was an all star.

eliasrapp98 · Post #114 » by **eliasrapp98** » Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:21 am

No Offense wrote:Did somebody seriously say that Varejao isn't a good defender?

You can't reason with somebody whose knowledge of the NBA is so centered around their favorite team that they honestly don't know that Varejao is a defensive specialist.

Nope. Said he's not a GREAT defender. He's no Marc Gasol. He's good, not great.

No Offense · Post #115 » by **No Offense** » Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:26 am

eliasrapp98 wrote:
No Offense wrote:
HartfordWhalers wrote:The point that people have been trying to make is that saying Young's value will be judged by his team's success when he is on the team with the least talent in the league seems incredibly foolish.

The argument is simplistic at best, and again pretty clearly flawed. But if you insist to stick with it, then you need to apply to to Varejao and not just Young.

Cavs winning percentage with Varejao last season 20%.
Cavs winning percentage without Varejao last season 33%.

Applying you logic, we have seen exactly how valuable Varejao is and that is that he makes teams worse. However, I would argue that that is a dumb argument, when made for both Young and Varejao.

You should probably look at the Cavs' schedule during games that he played before blaming him for their decreased winning percentage with him. In addition, the Cavs made a trade around January 20th. They traded Jon Leuer for Marreese Speights and Wayne Ellington. It's very possible that the Cavs actually started winning at a higher percentage because of the addition of an actual bench as opposed to a guy who averaged 14, 14 and 3 being injured.

That was sarcasm, btw.

Let's look 2007-2008. That is the year Varejao had a contract dispute and missed the first 21 games of the season. The Cavs were 10-12. They were in the midst of a 6 game losing streak. After Varejao came back and up until the Cavs made that big trade on February 22, they went 20-12.

I omitted the games after that trade because I didn't want to be accused of having the win percentage be spurious in nature because they got rid of dead weight and replaced it with better players.

07-08? That was so far back ago that T-Mac and Ming were still playing at high levels and Michael Redd was an all star.

Why don't you actually reply to my post and add something to it instead of trying to derail the conversation?

No Offense · Post #116 » by **No Offense** » Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:27 am

Foshan wrote:I can't believe this thread is still alive, somebody just put it out of its misery. No one likes the original deal and its just a fan argument of my favorite under rated player is better than your favorite under rated player.

One side is actually providing data and making arguments and he other is trying to derail the conversation.

eliasrapp98 · Post #117 » by **eliasrapp98** » Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:28 am

No Offense wrote:
eliasrapp98 wrote:
No Offense wrote:
You should probably look at the Cavs' schedule during games that he played before blaming him for their decreased winning percentage with him. In addition, the Cavs made a trade around January 20th. They traded Jon Leuer for Marreese Speights and Wayne Ellington. It's very possible that the Cavs actually started winning at a higher percentage because of the addition of an actual bench as opposed to a guy who averaged 14, 14 and 3 being injured.

That was sarcasm, btw.

Let's look 2007-2008. That is the year Varejao had a contract dispute and missed the first 21 games of the season. The Cavs were 10-12. They were in the midst of a 6 game losing streak. After Varejao came back and up until the Cavs made that big trade on February 22, they went 20-12.

I omitted the games after that trade because I didn't want to be accused of having the win percentage be spurious in nature because they got rid of dead weight and replaced it with better players.

07-08? That was so far back ago that T-Mac and Ming were still playing at high levels and Michael Redd was an all star.

Why don't you actually reply to my post and add something to it instead of trying to derail the conversation?

What are you a mod? Derailing? I'm pointing out that you're quoting stats from a time so long ago that Rose, Love, and Westbrook were in college. Redd was averaging 22 PPG, Iverson was still a great player, Shaq had just won a championship with the Heat, etc. Thad was a rookie when this scenario on the Cavs played out. Hell, Lebron was on the Cavs then...

Post #118 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:30 am

No Offense wrote:
Foshan wrote:I can't believe this thread is still alive, somebody just put it out of its misery. No one likes the original deal and its just a fan argument of my favorite under rated player is better than your favorite under rated player.

One side is actually providing data and making arguments and he other is trying to derail the conversation.

Eh, I guess this isn't the worst generalization in this thread.

eliasrapp98 · Post #119 » by **eliasrapp98** » Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:30 am

No Offense wrote:
Foshan wrote:I can't believe this thread is still alive, somebody just put it out of its misery. No one likes the original deal and its just a fan argument of my favorite under rated player is better than your favorite under rated player.

One side is actually providing data and making arguments and he other is trying to derail the conversation.

And there you go again. If you're gonna backseat mod, I'm gonna backseat mod, I think you're derailing by avoiding my point and instead making 2 worthless posts about me "derailing" the argument when you're the one who won't respond to my post which just states that you're using ancient data to prove a point...

No Offense · Post #120 » by **No Offense** » Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:31 am

eliasrapp98 wrote:
No Offense wrote:
eliasrapp98 wrote:07-08? That was so far back ago that T-Mac and Ming were still playing at high levels and Michael Redd was an all star.

Why don't you actually reply to my post and add something to it instead of trying to derail the conversation?

What are you a mod? Derailing? I'm pointing out that you're quoting stats from a time so long ago that Rose, Love, and Westbrook were in college. Redd was averaging 22 PPG, Iverson was still a great player, Shaq had just won a championship with the Heat, etc. Thad was a rookie when this scenario on the Cavs played out. Hell, Lebron was on the Cavs then...

Right. And without Varejao, they were 10-12.

Next.