Jefferson for Jackson now a done deal

[SinJackal]

And you can tell me about how stats don't matter until you're blue in the face.

I didn't say stats don't matter. I said stats are not the end-all be-all.

You are pointing out Jefferson didn't get to play in too many games alongside Ginobili, yet Jackson's worst performance so far (he was horrible in that game, I am not running away from that) came in a game in which there was no Manu, no Tony and no Timmy.

You're acting like they don't matter.

As for Jackson's worst game being withiout Ginobili. . .xactly my point. So Jackson has what, one or two games without Manu to water down his stats a little (when he's supposed to be a ball handler and go-to guy. . .that's your entire argument about Jackson > RJ), while Jefferson has most of the season doing it. Look at RJ' stats last year with Manu. They blow Jackson's doors off. I didn't even bother mentioning that because it's blatantly obvious and doesn't even need to be argued.

When he's worse in every category, and barely breaking even in the one category he was supposed to be way better in, you cannot tell me he's a good fit and an upgrade. He's been worse across the board son.

Again, some of those statistical comparisons are not used correctly. Per-game stats do not mean what you make them mean when one guy is playing nearly 50% more minutes than the other guy. Obviously this goes both ways as Jackson's TOs should also go up but so will his points, rebounds, assists, steals. Again, stats only matter so much, and it is also important how you use them.

It doesn't matter. Only two of the stats I mentioned are even effected by minutes, and both of those stats are rendered pointless due to his inefficiency.

First of all, he wasn't getting 50% more minutes, he was only getting about 20% more. Jackson's PPG per 36 minutes would only be 0.9 points higher than RJ's, and his FG%, 3pt%, eFG%, and TS% would still be far worse, which means he'd have to eat up more of the teams' possessions to get those extra 0.9 points, in other words it doesn't matter. Just like with the assists, sure, he'd average 0.3 more assists than RJ over 36 minutes, but he'd also average double RJ's turnovers. Which I think is fair to say, more than cancels out that 0.3. Just like having to take 2 more FGAs cancels out the extra less than 1 point.

Then, there's the fact that the team's offense sputters in place when Jackson's on the floor. If you ignore every other stats (you'd be afool too), you can't deny that the offense chugs when Jackson's out there. It goes nowhere. Like I said, worst offensive rating on the team besides Corey Joseph who we all know can't run the point at all.

In the end, the question was: "Is Jackson a better fit?". Statistically, the team does worse with Jackson on the floor than it did with RJ. So the answer is no. He isn't. And just like I said, he might be better defensively, but he's so much worse offensively that it negates that and thensome. RJ was the better fit than Jackson, and the stats prove it. There literally isn't an argument against it, because reality has spoken.

This isn't my opinion. It's what happened. It's what continues to happen. He is worse. Buford saved some money and certain fans who don't know any better (like you), got excited and continue to stay excited despite it not having worked out the way you claimed it would. . .that's the only positive of that move. Saved money.

[batmana]

First of all, he wasn't getting 50% more minutes, he was only getting about 20% more.

My bad, wasn't 50% more, I just checked the minutes the other day and obviously confused them when posting that one.

[Donald Kaufman]

You think I'm "trying" some **** because I'm "new here"? Rofl, I don't give a **** what you, or anyone else here thinks of me.

Which is why you post your thoughts on a forum, right? If you really didn't care what people thought you wouldn't post at all.

Especially not you. You're useless, lie constantly, and never post any factual information. I'm not here to be friends with people, I'm here to talk about Spurs, and talk about basketball.

No, you're here to give your opinions which you pass off as fact, then tell people they're wrong if their opinion differs from yours.

You aren't bothered by my comments about you because you probably hear them everywhere. You don't post here to inform or have a discussion, therefore you can't be offended when somebody tells you that everything you post is worthless. You already know it is. Is that supposed to be impressive?

No, I'm not bothered by your comments because I have zero respect for your opinion. Simple.

[SinJackal]

Your posts are worthless Kaufman. Zero facts, lies, more lies, then trolling. Claiming stats are an opinion is the dumbest thing you've done yet because you just prove what an idiot you are.

I've already won the debate here. You're just pissing in the wind at this point kid. I couldn't care less what you think of me or my posts because you're stupid and don't know anything. I don't seek the respect or acceptance of ignorant people like yourself.

[Donald Kaufman]

You post these ridiculously long rants after each game and it's so obvious to me that you're trying to prove yourself, yet you claim to not care about anyone's opinion. So what's with the posts then? If you don't care about anyone's opinion aside from your own, why are you sharing it on a forum? I call bull. You do care about people's opinion, mine included, or you wouldn't keep responding. You want approval, and when you don't get it or someone questions your opinion you blast them.

You're the only one here who thinks RJ had the least bit of value on this team, and as I've mentioned previously, it doesn't make you unique so much as it makes you appear a bigger dumbass than you probably are.

[fuzzy1]

Your posts are worthless Kaufman. Zero facts, lies, more lies, then trolling. Claiming stats are an opinion is the dumbest thing you've done yet because you just prove what an idiot you are.

I've already won the debate here. You're just pissing in the wind at this point kid. I couldn't care less what you think of me or my posts because you're stupid and don't know anything. I don't seek the respect or acceptance of ignorant people like yourself.

Dude. Chill. No reason to get in everybody's face.

[co_laper]

Your posts are worthless Kaufman. Zero facts, lies, more lies, then trolling. Claiming stats are an opinion is the dumbest thing you've done yet because you just prove what an idiot you are.

I've already won the debate here. You're just pissing in the wind at this point kid. I couldn't care less what you think of me or my posts because you're stupid and don't know anything. I don't seek the respect or acceptance of ignorant people like yourself.

Dude. Chill. No reason to get in everybody's face.

He only seek acceptance and respect from people like me

[batmana]

As for Jackson's worst game being withiout Ginobili. . .xactly my point. So Jackson has what, one or two games without Manu to water down his stats a little (when he's supposed to be a ball handler and go-to guy. . .that's your entire argument about Jackson > RJ), while Jefferson has most of the season doing it. Look at RJ' stats last year with Manu. They blow Jackson's doors off. I didn't even bother mentioning that because it's blatantly obvious and doesn't even need to be argued.

I think you just agreed with yourself... I never made a case about Jackson's (or anyone's) stats with or w/o Ginobili but you seemed to think it affected Jefferson's stats. I think that for Jefferson's stats there is a good samplesize so that things are pretty much what they are. Jackson's, on the other hand, due to small samplesize will fluctuate more rapidly. In fact, on 82games they only have stats till April 1st at the moment so I won't use them for my argument.

And nobody's entire argument was that Jackson was only a better ball-handler and nothing else. In fact, you continuously disregarded the fact that per-36 stats do not give Jefferson a clear advantage and tried to pass per-game stats instead.

And you repeatedly post your opinions as facts. We get it that you're big on stats but guess what, people's opinions differ, and stats only tell one side of the story. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Did we retire the numbers of Avery Johnson and Bruce Bowen because of their stats?

[BFrizzy]

Your posts are worthless Kaufman. Zero facts, lies, more lies, then trolling. Claiming stats are an opinion is the dumbest thing you've done yet because you just prove what an idiot you are.

You're right, stats aren't opinion. But your interpretation of those stats are opinion.

Anyway, Jax is a far more effective player than Jefferson was from what I've seen this season. Makes smarter plays and is aggressive at the right moments. His downgrade in 3pt percentage is outweighed by the other attributes he brings to the table.

[SinJackal]

As for Jackson's worst game being withiout Ginobili. . .xactly my point. So Jackson has what, one or two games without Manu to water down his stats a little (when he's supposed to be a ball handler and go-to guy. . .that's your entire argument about Jackson > RJ), while Jefferson has most of the season doing it. Look at RJ' stats last year with Manu. They blow Jackson's doors off. I didn't even bother mentioning that because it's blatantly obvious and doesn't even need to be argued.

I think you just agreed with yourself... I never made a case about Jackson's (or anyone's) stats with or w/o Ginobili but you seemed to think it affected Jefferson's stats. I think that for Jefferson's stats there is a good samplesize so that things are pretty much what they are. Jackson's, on the other hand, due to small samplesize will fluctuate more rapidly. In fact, on 82games they only have stats till April 1st at the moment so I won't use them for my argument.

And nobody's entire argument was that Jackson was only a better ball-handler and nothing else. In fact, you continuously disregarded the fact that per-36 stats do not give Jefferson a clear advantage and tried to pass per-game stats instead.

And you repeatedly post your opinions as facts. We get it that you're big on stats but guess what, people's opinions differ, and stats only tell one side of the story. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Did we retire the numbers of Avery Johnson and Bruce Bowen because of their stats?

First of all, talking about sample size is a convienient excuse, because since Jackson was traded to the Spurs after the halfway point in the season, you can just keep claiming that he hasn't played as many games with the Spurs this year as RJ, so oh, we can't make a fair comparison! Please dude, that's an incredibly weak excuse and you know it. You and that other dude kept verbally blowing Jackson and arguing with me about him not being a good fit because he had a good first 2-3 games. So I said okay, let's see how he does 10-12 games from now, I guarantee you his stats and production will drop below RJ's. If they didn't, I'd admit I was wrong. I also said I'd love to be wrong since that means the Spurs are better. 14 games later, his stats have dropped, and kept dropping, and kept dropping some more. At this point, I don't even have to point out why he's worse because his stats speak for me.

Speaking of which, I already replied to the per 36 comment. I haven't ignored any arguments, I've replied to them all. I'll post my reply again for you.

First of all, he wasn't getting 50% more minutes, he was only getting about 20% more. Jackson's PPG per 36 minutes would only be 0.9 points higher than RJ's, and his FG%, 3pt%, eFG%, and TS% would still be far worse, which means he'd have to eat up more of the teams' possessions to get those extra 0.9 points, in other words it doesn't matter. Just like with the assists, sure, he'd average 0.3 more assists than RJ over 36 minutes, but he'd also average double RJ's turnovers. Which I think is fair to say, more than cancels out that 0.3. Just like having to take 2 more FGAs cancels out the extra less than 1 point.

Then, there's the fact that the team's offense sputters in place when Jackson's on the floor. If you ignore every other stats (you'd be afool too), you can't deny that the offense chugs when Jackson's out there. It goes nowhere. Like I said, worst offensive rating on the team besides Corey Joseph who we all know can't run the point at all.

In the end, the question was: "Is Jackson a better fit?". Statistically, the team does worse with Jackson on the floor than it did with RJ. So the answer is no. He isn't. And just like I said, he might be better defensively, but he's so much worse offensively that it negates that and thensome. RJ was the better fit than Jackson, and the stats prove it. There literally isn't an argument against it, because reality has spoken.

Anyway, as I already pointed out, its not an "opinion" if I say that one number is higher than another, when it is. 110 is higher than 91. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. Don't try to cloud the issue with lies or incorrect usesages of words.

Jackson's stats, production, and positive impact have been statistically worse. That isn't an opinion, it's a fact because stats measure those exact things. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at the stat sheet and say hey, Jackson's stats are clearly worse. . .because they are in almost every category. Even per 36.


In the end, you can't even make the argument that he makes the team better even if his stats are worse, because the difference between his offensive and defensive rating is -9, while RJ's was +4. That's a 13 point difference per 100 possessions in RJ's favor.

And no, sorry, me saying that isn't an opinion. It's called looking at the numbers and stating what the difference between their numbers are. Just because a human being utters a comment doesn't make it an opinion.

Your posts are worthless Kaufman. Zero facts, lies, more lies, then trolling. Claiming stats are an opinion is the dumbest thing you've done yet because you just prove what an idiot you are.

You're right, stats aren't opinion. But your interpretation of those stats are opinion.

Anyway, Jax is a far more effective player than Jefferson was from what I've seen this season. Makes smarter plays and is aggressive at the right moments. His downgrade in 3pt percentage is outweighed by the other attributes he brings to the table.

You're just trying to devalue the stats by pretending like they're worthless because somebody has to post them. That doesn't work, that's a grade school argument.

I got the stats from basketballreference.com and NBA.com. I didn't watch the game and count out the stats myself and let bias effect it.

I also am not stating an opinion when I say that the number 91 is lower than the number 110. That's a fact. It isn't an opinion just because I'm uttering the words. Jackson's stats have been worse than RJ's. Fact. Jackson's Offensive rating (team production while he's on the floor), has been vastly inferior to RJ's by a gigantic 19 points. . .that isn't an opinion, it's a fact,

When I say Jackson's offensive rating with the Spurs this year is 91, and RJ's was 109 with the Spurs this year, that isn't an opinion, it's a fact.

When I say he has the worst offensive rating of any active Spur right now, that isn't an opinion, it's a fact. It's called looking at the numbers and saying hey look, when you click ORating to sort who has the highest and lowest ratings, I can see Stephen Jackson on the bottom with his 91. Meanwhile RJ, this year, his rating was 110.

That isn't an opinion either, it's a fact. I don't think you guys understand what an opinion is exactly, since you seem unable to separate them from facts. I'm not making up the numbers. They're readable by anyone who knows how to use google or knows where to find the stats.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2012.html

^ I don't need to post an opinion on Jackson and RJ when their play has spoken for me. I never posted who I liked better. I posted who I felt was a better fit. Then instead of arguing about it, I waited to let Jackson prove me wrong, and he hasn't. RJ was the better fit with the Spurs, seeing as how his presence has resulsted in a 3.6% positive difference between points scored and given up, whereas Jackson's has resulted in a 9% negative difference.

Again, that isn't an opinion, it's a statistical fact. There's no other way to explain those numbers without making excuses and actually posting an opinion. Simply stating what the stats are isn't an opinion, it's stating the facts.

Dude. Chill. No reason to get in everybody's face.

Pfft, dude, I'm not even about to feel bad about any comments I make to Kaufmen. He's an ignorant troll with an inferiority complex.

[Donald Kaufman]

Damn, I thought I'd gotten rid of you with my biting wit and cutting comments. Obviously I'll need to try harder.

[batmana]

I suggest we shut Jackson after his atrocious game @ Utah. That way, his stats will stay that low and he won't have another chance to improve them.

The small samplesize is meaningful because, since Jackson has played in only 11 games or so, every single game will most likely change his stats in some way (improve or deteriorate). His shooting could jump 10 percentage points (or drop this much) in just one game. His averages could go up or down by a single unit in one game. For comparison, since Jefferson played 40+ games for us this season, he would have to score close to 50 points to improve his scoring average by 1 point while Jackson would have it increase by 1 point with a 20-point game.

If you care to check the stats they have on 82games.com, Jackson's are way better than Jefferson's. But then, those stats are from his 1st 6 games as a Spur. Just like you, I didn't count those stats myself, I checked them online. And they suggest a different thing.

[SinJackal]

If by 11 you mean 15 (16 including today), then okay. There's going to be more than 4 more games after this too, so his "sample size" will be over 20 games. It's already closing in already. He's also trending down, which is what I expected. He started off great, and I was thinking, "damn am I glad to be wrong for once!" But then he started trending down and just kept dropping.

I hope the dude improves and starts to fit in better. I don't dislike Jackson, nor do I want him to fail. . .but it baffles me how anybody can claim he's been playing better than Jefferson since that's clearly false. He's only shooting 36% now. . .with us. He basically just fell back to par with his bad play in Wisconsin earlier this year after starting with a hot first few games. So he's actually been especially bad lately, as one has to play much worse to drop back to par after starting well. Sigh.

At least they're crushing the Lakers tonight. I feared Pop would "rest guys" again. Hopefully he doesn't tank the game tomorrow for rest either.

Damn, I thought I'd gotten rid of you with my biting wit and cutting comments. Obviously I'll need to try harder.

Bitch please. Your comments blow and aren't "cutting" or "witty" at all. You're too dumb to be taken seriously.

[Donald Kaufman]

I find your Internet Tough Guy schtick comical. Keep going.