Scase wrote:pingpongrac wrote:Scase wrote:Jesus Christ man, if you are going to come into a thread dick swinging, take 5min out of your day to read the previous posts to understand the context of the convo. Everyone was talking about the lineup changes, my comment was pointing out that the lineup changes just showed that Siakam is not needed for those types of lineups to work.
This is literally all I was saying. But no, you and everyone else that feels the need to blindly defend players came in and started harping on how he had a "great game". Because you can't allow your bestie to have anyone dare besmirch them.
I was discussing Siakams fit and how he isn't needed on this team. You decided to bring Scottie into this. If you can't take the prerequisite time to read the convo and understand what is being talked about, keep your comments to yourself and stop arguing for the sake of arguing.
Dude...lol. I've recently seen you get on other posters for not being crystal clear with their posts because YOU misunderstood something, but now everyone is supposed to know exactly what you meant when you said "the only thing the lineup change did was show just how unnecessary Siakam is"? And then when people pointed out how inaccurate that remark was after a game where Siakam had 22/6/11 on 64 TS%, you kept moving the goalposts and continued to dig a deeper hole by saying that Siakam was just "good" in the 3rd quarter – when he put up 12 points and 6 assists on 73 TS%. And to top it off, you went as far as to say Scottie and OG had better games simply because they gave us a cushion in the first half. Why is the first half (where we had a 9-point lead after 24 minutes) more important than Q3 (where we extended our lead to 16)? Why is Siakam's 12/2/6 in 12 minutes of Q3 so much less significant than Scottie's 13/7/5 or OG's 19/3/2 in 19 minutes of H1? He generally produced more on a per minute basis in that 3rd quarter than Scottie (more points and assists but less rebounds) and OG (significantly more assists and equal points and rebounds) in the first half. Without Scottie and OG in the first half, the game could have gotten away from us...but the exact same thing can be said about Q3 where Siakam scored or assisted on 28 of our 38 points.
The words may not have come across as you intended, but you have continually downplayed Siakam's good – or even great – games all season long in order to prop up Scottie even more, so it's easy to see why there might be some confusion. This whole "Scottie had a better game than Siakam so that means Siakam didn't have a good game" or "Siakam put up numbers but it was against a bad defence so it doesn't count" or "Siakam only showed up for one quarter so it doesn't count" or whatever other thing is tiring. It's okay to admit that both Scottie and Siakam had a good game together every once in a while, and it's okay to admit that Siakam had a good/great game regardless if it's against a good or bad team.
As I explained earlier in the thread, the Raptors are horrendous at starting off games on the right foot, which results in them constantly being down 10-20 points, we all know this is an issue and has been the cause for a chunk of our losses.
I value players putting up good stats in the beginning of the game over players putting up stats after the lead is already secured. They are both important yes, I'm not disputing that, but my level of importance is getting off to a good start. And in the first half Siakam put up 6 points on 3/7 shooting, I am less impressed with that and value it less.
I never mentioned Scottie, or any other player, others brought up comparisons. I simply said Siakam was not necessary in this offensive system. Hell if anything the flowers should be going to OG above both Scottie and Siakam, but no, everyone has to rush to Siakams defence.
Og had a great game, Scottie had a good game, Siakam had an ok game. It's gonna be ok, you can sleep well at night.
And if Siakam put up a dud of a quarter and the Wizards came back into the game you would be the first one to blame him for not stomping on their necks and letting them back into the game.
Points scored in Q1 are the same as points scored in Q2, 3, and 4.
Here is a breakdown of OG's game
3 pointer (3) - wide open corner 3 off Scottie penetration
2 pointer (5) - transition layup
2 pointer (7) - good take to the rim off of GTJ penetration
3 pointer (10) - open catch and shoot 3 off a set play
2 pointer (12) - exact same action as his previous 3. Stepped into a step back mid-range 2. So far, really his only point he created himself
2 pointer (14) - transition open dunk
2 pointer (16) - transition open dunk
and-1 (19) - transition layup
2 pointer (21) - wide open set play alley-oop
2 pointer (23) - real good take off a swing. I would say this was just a great play by OG
3 pointer (26) - wide open corner 3 off Siakam and Dennis ball movement
So are we really gonna give OG his flowers for simply making open layups and three's? Like sure - he had to make the shots but all his offense was created off of defense or off other peoples penetration for the most part. Nothing OG did was that impressive.
And no lol. Flowers should not be give not OG above Scottie and Siakam.
OG is the perfect reason why efficiency and PPG is not the best way to evaluate a scorer. OG had maybe the quietest 26 I have ever seen and although he scored 26 points and had amazing efficiency, it really had NOTHING to do with OG. This is the epitome of why there is more to scoring than PPG.
