2019 NBA draft part deux

[Klomp]

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.

This is not what we are saying at all.

We are saying that Towns' spacing allows him to play next to a non-spacing Jordan.

[Klomp]

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

Never argued that Clarke is great on long 2s or 3s.

But I thought people wanted to eliminate long 2s? So why is it so important for Clarke to shoot them?

[Mattya]

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.

Then why when people are talking about players and floor spacers you want to point out constantly that Brandon Clarke is a "GOOD SHOOTER." You clearly know what people are debating something different and constantly make the same points. We get it, Clarke gets a lot of dunks and has soft touch in the lane. He isn't a floor spacer no matter what his paint fg% is.

[KGdaBom]

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.

I'm simply going to ignore this post because I want to discuss not argue.

[Mattya]

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

Never argued that Clarke is great on long 2s or 3s.

But I thought people wanted to eliminate long 2s? So why is it so important for Clarke to shoot them?

Who is arguing that Clarke should shoot long twos outside of you and KG arguing that he shoots those well?

We are arguing that his shooting from the mid range isn't valuable. The only floor spacing as a shooter he provides, isn't valuable.

[KGdaBom]

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

I never once argued in bad faith. I acknowledged any actual points you made like floor spacing.

[Mattya]

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

I never once argued in bad faith. I acknowledged any actual points you made like floor spacing.

Oh got it, so all the times you interject yourself into conversations about floor spacing stating a dunkers FG%, so it makes him a good shooter, didn't happen.

If you have to inject yourself into a conversation and make unrelated points, but then equate your point, then you are arguing in bad faith. It is a distraction from the actual discussion and a waste of time.

[KGdaBom]

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.

Then why when people are talking about players and floor spacers you want to point out constantly that Brandon Clarke is a "GOOD SHOOTER." You clearly know what people are debating something different and constantly make the same points. We get it, Clarke gets a lot of dunks and has soft touch in the lane. He isn't a floor spacer no matter what his paint fg% is.

Because I want to paint the whole picture accurately. We disagree on the definition of shooting. The concept of a player being a good shooter or not IMO should at least include jump shots. However, are 3 point shots by your definition the only shots that count for shooting? Or can we establish a middle ground and include jump shots?

[Klomp]

We are arguing that his shooting from the mid range isn't valuable. The only floor spacing as a shooter he provides, isn't valuable.

Making shots isn't valuable? Got it...

I'll look for draft prospects who don't make shots....like Nassir Little's 26% shooting. What a great shooter!

[SO_MONEY]

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.

Then why when people are talking about players and floor spacers you want to point out constantly that Brandon Clarke is a "GOOD SHOOTER." You clearly know what people are debating something different and constantly make the same points. We get it, Clarke gets a lot of dunks and has soft touch in the lane. He isn't a floor spacer no matter what his paint fg% is.

Because I want to paint the whole picture accurately. We disagree on the definition of shooting. The concept of a player being a good shooter or not IMO should at least include jump shots. However, are 3 point shots by your definition the only shots that count for shooting? Or can we establish a middle ground and include jump shots?

Except he isn't a jumpshooter and jumpers are not part of his game and "jumpers" to what you are referencing are floaters, hook-shots, runners ect... Liberties have been taken with definitions. And doesn't really equate to good shooting or jumpers at all.

Sent from my LGMS428 using Tapatalk

[Klomp]

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?

Since you bring up Al Jefferson....

Again, let me point to the stat that Clarke shot 52.8% on 2s away from the rim last year. You seem to think that statistic is equivalent to Al Jefferson, even though Jefferson's career shooting on 2s away from the rim is 42.7%. See the difference?

[KGdaBom]

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

I never once argued in bad faith. I acknowledged any actual points you made like floor spacing.

Oh got it, so all the times you interject yourself into conversations about floor spacing stating a dunkers FG%, so it makes him a good shooter, didn't happen.

If you have to inject yourself into a conversation and make unrelated points, but then equate your point, then you are arguing in bad faith. It is a distraction from the actual discussion and a waste of time.

In a perfect world the only shots I would prefer our team to take is wide open dunks. Those are the most efficient shots. However, they are hard to come by so it is good to be able to shoot from other spots on the court. Whatever shots a player takes we want that player to score efficiently. Long twos for most players is a very inefficient shot. For players who can make 35% or better on threes that is an efficient shot. Mid range twos for most players is an inefficient shot. Clarke happens to be one of those players that shoots mid range shots efficiently. He also does a great job of getting off a lot of extremely efficient close range shots. So my points or arguments are based on how efficiently the player can score whether it meets somebody's definition of shooter or not. IMO you make floor spacing a bigger deal than it needs to be. In your opinion I'm quite confident you think I should make a bigger deal out of it. Are we in agreement on these points?

[KGdaBom]

Then why when people are talking about players and floor spacers you want to point out constantly that Brandon Clarke is a "GOOD SHOOTER." You clearly know what people are debating something different and constantly make the same points. We get it, Clarke gets a lot of dunks and has soft touch in the lane. He isn't a floor spacer no matter what his paint fg% is.

Because I want to paint the whole picture accurately. We disagree on the definition of shooting. The concept of a player being a good shooter or not IMO should at least include jump shots. However, are 3 point shots by your definition the only shots that count for shooting? Or can we establish a middle ground and include jump shots?

Except he isn't a jumpshooter and jumpers are not part of his game and "jumpers" to what you are referencing are floaters, hook-shots, runners ect... Liberties have been taken with definitions. And doesn't really equate to good shooting or jumpers at all.

Sent from my LGMS428 using Tapatalk

My understanding of Clarke's 52% jump shots is they are actual jump shots. Other shots were lumped into other categories. I could be wrong about this.

[Klomp]

My understanding of Clarke's 52% jump shots is they are actual jump shots. Other shots were lumped into other categories. I could be wrong about this.

The 2-point jumper classification is anything that wasn't classified as layups, dunks, or tip-ins in the play-by-play data.

[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?

Since you bring up Al Jefferson....

Again, let me point to the stat that Clarke shot 52.8% on 2s away from the rim last year. You seem to think that statistic is equivalent to Al Jefferson, even though Jefferson's career shooting on 2s away from the rim is 42.7%. See the difference?

The shots that are officially declared jump shots in the basketball stats of Al Jefferson I think he was well above average. So for Clarke to be 10% better is phenomenal.

[KGdaBom]

My understanding of Clarke's 52% jump shots is they are actual jump shots. Other shots were lumped into other categories. I could be wrong about this.

The 2-point jumper classification is anything that wasn't classified as layups, dunks, or tip-ins in the play-by-play data.

Thank you. I was operating under the assumption that they were only when he actually jumped and took the shot. However, that said most players efficiency on those shots that I have seen are in the 30s. So he is still phenomenal at them.

[Mattya]

Then why when people are talking about players and floor spacers you want to point out constantly that Brandon Clarke is a "GOOD SHOOTER." You clearly know what people are debating something different and constantly make the same points. We get it, Clarke gets a lot of dunks and has soft touch in the lane. He isn't a floor spacer no matter what his paint fg% is.

Because I want to paint the whole picture accurately. We disagree on the definition of shooting. The concept of a player being a good shooter or not IMO should at least include jump shots. However, are 3 point shots by your definition the only shots that count for shooting? Or can we establish a middle ground and include jump shots?

Except he isn't a jumpshooter and jumpers are not part of his game and "jumpers" to what you are referencing are floaters, hook-shots, runners ect... Liberties have been taken with definitions. And doesn't really equate to good shooting or jumpers at all.

Sent from my LGMS428 using Tapatalk

This is news channels opinion shows level of spin.

[KGdaBom]

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

Never argued that Clarke is great on long 2s or 3s.

But I thought people wanted to eliminate long 2s? So why is it so important for Clarke to shoot them?

Who is arguing that Clarke should shoot long twos outside of you and KG arguing that he shoots those well?

We are arguing that his shooting from the mid range isn't valuable. The only floor spacing as a shooter he provides, isn't valuable.

His shooting from mid range is valuable if he is efficient on them. He is efficient on them. Hence it is valuable.

[KGdaBom]

Because I want to paint the whole picture accurately. We disagree on the definition of shooting. The concept of a player being a good shooter or not IMO should at least include jump shots. However, are 3 point shots by your definition the only shots that count for shooting? Or can we establish a middle ground and include jump shots?

Except he isn't a jumpshooter and jumpers are not part of his game and "jumpers" to what you are referencing are floaters, hook-shots, runners ect... Liberties have been taken with definitions. And doesn't really equate to good shooting or jumpers at all.

Sent from my LGMS428 using Tapatalk

This is news channels opinion shows level of spin.

I'm taking great pains as of now to try to look at the questions in the most comprehensive and accurate way. I sure wouldn't think that anything I have said in my last several posts qualifies as spin. I truly don't think you are yet doing the same. You're argument seems to be that he doesn't space the floor so he sucks. No other qualities are taken into account as far as I can tell. Maybe your argument is intended to be he is great at many things, but floor spacing is so critical that in the big picture he isn't good at floor spacing so he still sucks. My argument is that he doesn't space the floor, but does so many things well that he will be a good addition to any team that gets him.

[SO_MONEY]

Because I want to paint the whole picture accurately. We disagree on the definition of shooting. The concept of a player being a good shooter or not IMO should at least include jump shots. However, are 3 point shots by your definition the only shots that count for shooting? Or can we establish a middle ground and include jump shots?

Except he isn't a jumpshooter and jumpers are not part of his game and "jumpers" to what you are referencing are floaters, hook-shots, runners ect... Liberties have been taken with definitions. And doesn't really equate to good shooting or jumpers at all.

Sent from my LGMS428 using Tapatalk

This is news channels opinion shows level of spin.

Correct. And honestly he should at this point know that.