Prez wrote:Yeah, figured that'd be the response. You'll relentlessly rip on Jabari at every opportunity and make these strong claims but when the actual results disagree with you, you'll change the arguments and come up with any excuse possible to avoid accepting it. You're 100% right about all things Jabari (excluding all the times you're not right).
Just like last season when you would regularly take shots at Jabari when we had remotely decent defensive showings post-Jabari injury, talking up a FTD 2.0 run. But when the team cooled off and it was shown to you that the DRTG was actually slightly worse post-Jabari injury, you tried to downplay it by acting like Middleton was hobbled all season when you were just a month prior to that talking about how "Middleton is that good, Jabari is that bad".
It's ridiculous to suggest the team wasn't much better when Khris replaced Jabari. First off, the post-Jabari stats include 6 or 7 consecutive starts from Beasley before he got hurt, and that includes giving up ~125 points to the Nets and Lakers, among other defensive duds.Basically they got an even worse balance of all offense and no defense from their starting sf, so of course there wasn't much improvement. In such a limited number of games, outings like that skew the post-Jabari stats. If you want to explore the nuances of their post-Jabari run, you have to include that.
Khris started one of those games, but he didn't regularly start until March 3rd and started 22 consecutive games after that. The Bucks went 16-6 after being 7 games under .500 and looking awful. Khris had a net +/- over 100 in those games, which is absurdly good. I remember calculating the difference between what their opponents normally scored and what they scored against the Bucks, and they literally held opponents about 10 points below their season average for about 3 weeks straight. Pace was a factor, but that's still astounding. When your argument amounts to "the evidence that they were much better with Khris instead of Jabari is actually somewhat ambiguous" (and it's not even that ambiguous), that's actually kind of pathetic considering all the consideration people have given Jabari and the kind of trade suggestions they've panned. For games With Jabari and then Beasley, they were playing the worst basketball we've seen since Monta's last year.
And a lot of people still want them to match offers for him and are talking ~$20m or year or more. It blows my **** mind. Is it too much to ask that a guy you believe that much in to consistently and unambiguously make the team better when he plays? They got much better the first time he tore his ACL too, and that was when Dudley (a salary dump from LAC) replaced him. He consistently has negative splits, and as cinematographer showed, nearly every other player on the team has worse splits when isolated with Jabari vs. playing without him. This **** goes all the way back to coach K benching him in the tournament. Any one of these things by themselves should be taken with a grain of salt, but there's just constantly mounting evidence that he's not that helpful.
I may have over-estimated Khris and some other guys on the team in this year's predictions, but I see no reason to think I under-estimated Jabari. He would have gotten a little better if he hadn't gotten hurt again, but he would have been going from maybe a 4 to a 6 on a 10-point scale and people act like he was gonna go from a 7 to a 9 or some b.s. Khris, Brogdon, and Delly are playing bad defense right now, but even now with the frustrations of the current season, at least they're mostly losing to playoff teams instead of losing embarrassing games to terrible teams like they were last year. Frankly I'm still pretty confident they will be a strong team and win ~50, and I can only hope and pray that they have the sense to trade Jabari for some more help while they still can.
Wut we've got here is... faaailure... to communakate.