Billy Goat wrote:BKlutch wrote:Billy Goat wrote:
Pac 10, a major conference. The competition Lonzo was going up against was fine. Porzingis, over the last two years has not shot efficiently enough nor has he rebounded well enough. Lonzo's projections imo, are better than Porzingis'.
You keep saying the same thing over and over again, even though people who know a lot more than you have told you this is not right. Can you not learn from others here? Or do you purposely like to keep putting forth this same stuff over and over just to troll the board?
Knicks fans overrating their own talent has been going on forever. It's frustrating to me as a fellow fan. There are certain box score stats that correlate highly to winning- efficiency being the #1 thing. Porzingis efficiency numbers have been a little below average when considering his position/height. Being so dismissive of Lonzo is ridiculous imo, considering the freshman year he had...I personally think he's going to be awesome. Porzingis can obviously improve, but this notion that he's an untouchable star right now is absurd. The object here is to win right?
We were talking about Porzingis vs. Ball, not about Knicks fans overrating their talent. That's another issue.
Porzingis's numbers have compared favorable with other bigs in their first two years, but of course not with more established stars. You simply cherry picked wrong data to look at.
People haven't been dismissive of Lonzo, but have been very dismissive of Levar and of Big Bawler. They have said they don't know how he'll do in the NBA until they see him play. He may do well, but we can't actually
know that.
To write what you did about Ball and also that to write, "This notion that he's [Porzingis] is an untouchable star right now..." is called using a a straw man argument. It's the logical fallacy that occurs when you raise an argument that nobody else did, because it's easier to attack. I'm not certain who, if anybody, in the NBA is an untouchable star now.
Because of what I mentioned in the four above paragraphs, you look like a troll to me. A baby troll, perhaps, but a troll nevertheless. Why do you think people either ignore you or just disagree with you? (In general, of course).
If you'd like to be successful here, you're going to have to do things a bit differently. Very few people would feel like putting in much effort to argue (discuss) things with you if this is how you do it. Even I feel that, having explained this to you, it wouldn't be worth my time to engage with you unless you choose the argue constructively with us. [Note: it's NOT your point of view I'm discussing here, it's only how you argue it.]
