You simply move the goalposts too much on criticism which is why people have an issue with your debates. When you're proven otherwise, you don't say "Okay, fair enough, but.." you just move to a different argument. To be fair a lot of people do this, but I think it makes debates come to an end easier when both sides can acknowledge certain areas that make sense.
pepe1991 wrote:He averaged 6,6 points on 27% FG, 20% for 3 and on 8 FGA .
His defensive impact didn't translate because Magid defensive rating, with and without him was flat out terrible.
If you extend that theory to everybody, it's like saying good defense on their best players isn't translatable if the team's defensive rating isn't good. Players can have individually good defensive outings every game and not make a dent in ratings. If Lillard's 50 point game wasn't enough for the win, and everybody else's offensive ratings were terrible and dragged the overall down, would you say Lillard's offensive impact didn't translate? Of course it did.. it means that there was impact elsewhere from other players that didn't add to it. What I'm saying is, a bad team ratings on defense doesn't automatically mean that Isaac played bad defense.
pepe1991 wrote:We use same basic principles to judge everybody else, so why we can't do it to him?
I just explained that... you can judge him but you will experience more push back because most people judge players on their strengths and their current roles, age, contract, no matter what they think will happen in the future with them. Donovan Mitchell just had a pretty terrible playoffs offensively and some Jazz fans are criticizing the hell out of him but the others know it's his 2nd year and that he can improve and that he is young.. I bet if this was his 5th/6th year and he was up for a contract, he would have more criticism because of more expectations and experience.
pepe1991 wrote:It's laughable to say that somebody played "good defense" if he had 2 fouls in first 5 min, and was limited to 16 min total on 0 points and 6 rebounds.
Well that matters if the fouls are BS or not, and +/- isn't everything but don't act like you have not used this before to justify subpar games from players.. it's especially impressive in games where we're being blown out by 20-30 points because that's harder to come by. Since he wasn't even involved really offensively, and just watching the game, his defense WAS good in those minutes.
pepe1991 wrote:Games 2 ,4 and 5 were not "below average " but terrible ones. 2-19 FG, 8 points, 1 assist, 0 blocks, 0 steals, 16 rebounds in 67 min played.
The difference is, I can care less about his box score. If he gets 10/10 double double but is not playing defense, getting opportunistic buckets that fall in his lap or shooting us out of the game, that's worse to me in a game where he doesn't shoot much but does the rest of his role well. And again, that's our different opinions. I think game 4 he played his role well in those minutes but didn't really get an opportunity offensively.. the other 2 games were poor from him, just like they were from 5-6 other players every game.
Again, you didn't really answer why all players should be graded the same. If you acknowledge and think that Isaac will not be a great offensive player, why would he be (vocally) criticized by you MORE than Vuc or Fournier or DJ? If he's not criticized more, you certainly respond to his struggles more than others and are more welcome to discuss it. If Vuc's reasoning (in your mind) could simply be "shut down by a great defensive center + doubles" (which was true) and say Fournier's is "had a bad year" (which was true), why can't Isaac's be "is young and not there yet offensively" (which is also true)?
Just confused why he is the one that should be benched when he's shown nothing but improvement this year.
I hate to keep making analogies to other sports, but I mean, most fans of teams know the strengths and weaknesses of players. A 6 year experience guy making $30 million a year who hit 50 home runs in baseball for his team who then suddenly hits 0 in a playoff series is going to be criticized more than a young guy who is known to just be more of a role player but does his job steadily. Even if he makes a few mistakes and doesn't really move the needle or "impact" that playoff series, there's still hope that he is part of the future because of things he showed that year.
But your logic is more if that young utility role player doesn't hit 5 home runs, and the 50 home run guy whose role on the team is to hit home runs and drive in RBIs also doesn't hit 5 home runs, they should be judged on the same scale.. I don't agree with that at all. I don't think ANYBODY is saying that Isaac didn't play poorly on offense this playoff series.. with some of those numbers, you can't argue that.. and not to compare him to this guy (although I think the worst case where I wouldn't be disappointed, is him turning into Aminu), but I'm sure if Portland had McCollum, Lillard, Nurkic, (not comparing our offensive options to theirs, just in equivalence of 1st-3rd options) etc all struggling on offense shooting sub-35%, people's last worries are going to be about Aminu or going "Gosh, I wish Aminu didn't suck offensively too, this is something we need to talk and debate about more in depth." That alone sounds hilarious to read, now imagine if Aminu was 7 years younger in his 2nd year and had a good amount of promising games after an injury filled rookie year... that's how out of place and strange "equal criticism" looks.
