2019 NBA draft part deux

[KGdaBom]

You

You seem to be making up lies that Clarke can't shoot despite his 52% jump shooting and his incredible at the rim skills. That is arguing in very bad faith. I acknowledge that he hasn't demonstrated ability to shoot the 3, but there is so much more to shooting than shooting the three. Find me a draft eligible player who shot over 50% on jump shots with 3 or more shots per game other than Clarke. I'm not sure one exists.

Um... thanks for demonstrating my point. Didn't have to waste much time on you.

Sorry for stating facts. I guess we have nothing to discuss if you ignore them.

[Mattya]

Al Jefferson was a good jump shooter too...yawn.

Al Jefferson was a good NBA player. I'm still waiting for you to name the draft eligible player that is a more efficient shooter than Clarke. I will probably be waiting until hell freezes over.

If you count jump-shots as liberally as they are then the "case study" that came out like a decade ago claiming Al Jefferson was a good jump shooter to holds equal merit. Was Al Jefferson a good jump shooter? No of course not, neither is Clarke. Because we are not talking jump-shots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Being a good finisher, is not being a good shooter.

Got it?

There isn't a point. I called him out on these bad faith arguments a couple weeks ago. Still making the same points. He never acknowledges points he just repeats the same things over and over and then calls you a liar because he doesn't like facts and ignores all context.

[KGdaBom]

You

You seem to be making up lies that Clarke can't shoot despite his 52% jump shooting and his incredible at the rim skills. That is arguing in very bad faith. I acknowledge that he hasn't demonstrated ability to shoot the 3, but there is so much more to shooting than shooting the three. Find me a draft eligible player who shot over 50% on jump shots with 3 or more shots per game other than Clarke. I'm not sure one exists.

LOL. Keep going back to the well like it has any value.

Like it doesn't have value. I keep hammering the facts because you choose to ignore them. You haven't debated the issue with any arguments of merit.

[Mattya]

You seem to be making up lies that Clarke can't shoot despite his 52% jump shooting and his incredible at the rim skills. That is arguing in very bad faith. I acknowledge that he hasn't demonstrated ability to shoot the 3, but there is so much more to shooting than shooting the three. Find me a draft eligible player who shot over 50% on jump shots with 3 or more shots per game other than Clarke. I'm not sure one exists.

Um... thanks for demonstrating my point. Didn't have to waste much time on you.

Sorry for stating facts. I guess we have nothing to discuss if you ignore them.

What facts are you arguing?

[SO_MONEY]

Al Jefferson was a good NBA player. I'm still waiting for you to name the draft eligible player that is a more efficient shooter than Clarke. I will probably be waiting until hell freezes over.

If you count jump-shots as liberally as they are then the "case study" that came out like a decade ago claiming Al Jefferson was a good jump shooter to holds equal merit. Was Al Jefferson a good jump shooter? No of course not, neither is Clarke. Because we are not talking jump-shots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Got it?

What are we talking? 3 point shots and nothing else? I'm talking shooting in all it's varieties. The 3 is an efficient shot for those who can make 35%, but it pales compared to Clarke who makes 70% overall. Even Clarkes 52% jump shooting is just as good.Name me the player who is a more efficient shooter than Clarke. You can't right?

You have several kinds of shots, be they jump-shots, set-shots, hook-shots ect... Clarke isn't a jumpshooter and they are not actually counting jumpers as jumpers, just like they didn't with Al Jefferson. Clarke shot the ball something like 4 TIMES outside 17 feet. He is not a good shooter, or Steph Curry isn't on of the best. If only FG% determines if you are a good shooter. Well, then Mitch Robinson is one of the best shooters in the NBA. Your argument is not any good. Period.

[KGdaBom]

Al Jefferson was a good NBA player. I'm still waiting for you to name the draft eligible player that is a more efficient shooter than Clarke. I will probably be waiting until hell freezes over.

If you count jump-shots as liberally as they are then the "case study" that came out like a decade ago claiming Al Jefferson was a good jump shooter to holds equal merit. Was Al Jefferson a good jump shooter? No of course not, neither is Clarke. Because we are not talking jump-shots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Being a good finisher, is not being a good shooter.

Got it?

There isn't a point. I called him out on these bad faith arguments a couple weeks ago. Still making the same points. He never acknowledges points he just repeats the same things over and over and then calls you a liar because he doesn't like facts and ignores all context.

Show me any facts you have stated in this debate. Maybe a couple weeks ago you stated some, but I don't recall them. I appreciate much of what you have to say, but I haven't seen anything useful on the Clarke subject from you recently.

[Mattya]

If you count jump-shots as liberally as they are then the "case study" that came out like a decade ago claiming Al Jefferson was a good jump shooter to holds equal merit. Was Al Jefferson a good jump shooter? No of course not, neither is Clarke. Because we are not talking jump-shots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Being a good finisher, is not being a good shooter.

Got it?

There isn't a point. I called him out on these bad faith arguments a couple weeks ago. Still making the same points. He never acknowledges points he just repeats the same things over and over and then calls you a liar because he doesn't like facts and ignores all context.

Show me any facts you have stated in this debate. Maybe a couple weeks ago you stated some, but I don't recall them. I appreciate much of what you have to say, but I haven't seen anything useful on the Clarke subject from you recently.

Because I have had you on ignore then made the mistake of wasting 20 minutes on you now.

[KGdaBom]

Um... thanks for demonstrating my point. Didn't have to waste much time on you.

Sorry for stating facts. I guess we have nothing to discuss if you ignore them.

What facts are you arguing?

I'm arguing that overall Clarke is a very efficient scorer, since you don't like me calling him a shooter.

[KGdaBom]

There isn't a point. I called him out on these bad faith arguments a couple weeks ago. Still making the same points. He never acknowledges points he just repeats the same things over and over and then calls you a liar because he doesn't like facts and ignores all context.

Show me any facts you have stated in this debate. Maybe a couple weeks ago you stated some, but I don't recall them. I appreciate much of what you have to say, but I haven't seen anything useful on the Clarke subject from you recently.

Because I have had you on ignore then made the mistake of wasting 20 minutes on you now.

You offered nothing during that 20 minutes. I'm sorry you felt it was wasted. What were the useful points from a couple weeks ago? I'm totally willing to listen with an open mind.

[Mattya]

Sorry for stating facts. I guess we have nothing to discuss if you ignore them.

What facts are you arguing?

I'm arguing that overall Clarke is a very efficient scorer, since you don't like me calling him a shooter.

No you are arguing that he is a "GOOD SHOOTER" you liar.

[SO_MONEY]

Sorry for stating facts. I guess we have nothing to discuss if you ignore them.

What facts are you arguing?

I'm arguing that overall Clarke is a very efficient scorer, since you don't like me calling him a shooter.

And unlike him being a good shooter, that is probably true.

[Mattya]

Show me any facts you have stated in this debate. Maybe a couple weeks ago you stated some, but I don't recall them. I appreciate much of what you have to say, but I haven't seen anything useful on the Clarke subject from you recently.

Because I have had you on ignore then made the mistake of wasting 20 minutes on you now.

You offered nothing during that 20 minutes. I'm sorry you felt it was wasted. What were the useful points from a couple weeks ago? I'm totally willing to listen with an open mind.

You never answered to any of the questions then is the reason I put you on ignore. Why would I make the same arguments when you refuse to answer anything and just argue the same exact points over and over and over and over. It's literally the same things I read weeks ago. Why would I expect anything different from you?

[Klomp]

"Not a jump shot"

Watch on YouTube

[KGdaBom]

What facts are you arguing?

I'm arguing that overall Clarke is a very efficient scorer, since you don't like me calling him a shooter.

No you are arguing that he is a "GOOD SHOOTER" you liar.

I define any attempt to get the ball in the basket as a shot. However, I get that there is a difference between dunks, layups and finger rolls from jump shots. The problem I have is you won't even acknowledge his extremely good jump shooting. Please explain to me why those don't count as shooting in your analysis. I've acknowledged Clarke is quite weak at three point shooting, but honestly that is just one type of shooting.

[Mattya]

"Not a jump shot"

Watch on YouTube

and shot 38.2 % from 16-to the 3 point line and 12% behind the line. What an amazing shooter.

[Mattya]

I'm arguing that overall Clarke is a very efficient scorer, since you don't like me calling him a shooter.

No you are arguing that he is a "GOOD SHOOTER" you liar.

I define any attempt to get the ball in the basket as a shot. However, I get that there is a difference between dunks, layups and finger rolls from jump shots. The problem I have is you won't even acknowledge his extremely good jump shooting. Please explain to me why those don't count as shooting in your analysis. I've acknowledged Clarke is quite weak at three point shooting, but honestly that is just one type of shooting.

Because we are arguing FLOOR SPACING for the 10 million time. But because you NEED to make any bad faith excuse to make him look better you have to argue the same thing over and over and pretend it is a good point.

[KGdaBom]

Because I have had you on ignore then made the mistake of wasting 20 minutes on you now.

You offered nothing during that 20 minutes. I'm sorry you felt it was wasted. What were the useful points from a couple weeks ago? I'm totally willing to listen with an open mind.

You never answered to any of the questions then is the reason I put you on ignore. Why would I make the same arguments when you refuse to answer anything and just argue the same exact points over and over and over and over. It's literally the same things I read weeks ago. Why would I expect anything different from you?

I only say the same things because they are the facts. Please tell me the points you are making and I promise I will give them full open minded attention. I don't want to argue I would much rather discuss.

[Mattya]

I'll get in on the bad faith arguments since that is how both of you make your best points.

You both clearly are in favor of trading Towns for Deandre Jordan. He is shooting 64% FG, so he clearly a better shooter than Towns, and sure he is older than Towns, but he "could" improve. Sure he has really shown any improvement outside of improved FT shooting. That is without mention the defense he provides.

[KGdaBom]

No you are arguing that he is a "GOOD SHOOTER" you liar.

I define any attempt to get the ball in the basket as a shot. However, I get that there is a difference between dunks, layups and finger rolls from jump shots. The problem I have is you won't even acknowledge his extremely good jump shooting. Please explain to me why those don't count as shooting in your analysis. I've acknowledged Clarke is quite weak at three point shooting, but honestly that is just one type of shooting.

Because we are arguing FLOOR SPACING for the 10 million time. But because you NEED to make any bad faith excuse to make him look better you have to argue the same thing over and over and pretend it is a good point.

Being a good 3 point shooter helps with floor spacing. I have acknowledged and agreed with your point. It is established and you never need to say it to me again. We are in perfect harmony on that.

[Mattya]

You offered nothing during that 20 minutes. I'm sorry you felt it was wasted. What were the useful points from a couple weeks ago? I'm totally willing to listen with an open mind.

You never answered to any of the questions then is the reason I put you on ignore. Why would I make the same arguments when you refuse to answer anything and just argue the same exact points over and over and over and over. It's literally the same things I read weeks ago. Why would I expect anything different from you?

I only say the same things because they are the facts. Please tell me the points you are making and I promise I will give them full open minded attention. I don't want to argue I would much rather discuss.

No you are just repeating you interpretation of statistics. Interpretations aren't facts.

Based on the bold maybe there might be hope that you can understand why you are arguing in bad faith. "You don't want to argue, you want to discuss." Do you see how these two things are similar yet different? That is kind of like when people are arguing floor spacing, and you want to repeatedly point out a dunkers FG% in regards to spacing the floor. Similar yet different. Yet here you are weeks later discussing the same things. So you seem to understand what a bad faith argument is when you are arguing something similar yet different, but refuse to acknowledge your own bad faith argument