pingpongrac wrote:Scase wrote:pingpongrac wrote:
You've made it clear time and time again that you have been unable to be subjective when it comes to Siakam's play. Whenever he had an objectively great game when he was still in Toronto, you'd always be the first one to say something along the lines of "he could have been better" or "he only plays well against bad teams" while also being the first to jump on him for a terrible start to the season when it came to his 3FG% and claiming he was on pace to an historically bad season with absolutely zero chance of him getting his numbers up to his averages by the end of the year...but sure enough, he finished the year at 34.6% which was actually higher than his career average.
Even now, you said he had two hyper efficient games (the first of which was 61 TS%) then downplayed his 19/7/4 on 63 TS% performance in the series clincher as "solid". Just as you're saying two outlier games will throw off a small sample size, so does his 12/4/2 performance in game 5. The point is he was generally good or very good against the Bucks. They didn't need him to be anything more than what he was in the last few games which is why his FGA and USG% went from 24 and 32 respectively in the first two games to 14.5 and 20 in the last four games.
This is why I find it an utter waste to try and discuss this with people like you. You try and go on and say I'm unable to be objective, and when I claim he had hyper efficient games, you can't even fathom for 2 seconds, that having a 60%+ TS% on 23 or 25 FGA is more impressive than on 15 attempts.
His performance was bad in game 5 for sure, but it was in game 3 and game 4 as well. But because reading is hard and you couldn't grasp what I said before, I'll try to simplify it for you.
Game 1 very good
Game 2 very good
Game 3 bad
Game 4 bad
Game 5 very bad
Game 6 good
Is that easier for you?
He had a below average (efficiency) series and was worse than his regular season numbers for 4 of 6 games, his averages were grossly inflated by those 2. Here I am claiming he played very well for 2 games, and all you can recognize is 1 of 3 of his bad games. And I'm the one who is biased.
Siakam had 17/9/4 in G3 then he had 13/9/7 in G4. He didn't turn the ball over a single time in ~80 minutes and was a combined +16 in those two games (where the Pacers won by 1 and 15) while he also racked up 3 steals and 2 blocks. Do you think he was "outright bad" simply because he didn't score a lot of points on high efficiency in those games? Do you think he was bad tonight too simply because he didn't score a lot and wasn't very efficient? Or can you acknowledge that he was solid tonight (just as he was in G3 and G4 against the Bucks) and he played a complete game despite not having a great scoring night?
Indiana should have won that game if not for some ref shenanigans, but Haliburton also just isn't playing near as well as he was prior to his injury halfway through the season. He looked completely checked out of the game just as he did in the first game against the Bucks.
He was below average today, like is it just that your standards for good are so low? 53% TS%, and he was basically matched performance wise, by TJ mcconnel in 15min less. Like jesus, no he wasn't particularly good, he wasn't awful but 19 points on bad efficiency by your first option scorer is horrible.
But I wouldn't expect anything less, while you blame the loss on the refs. Must've been the refs that let the knicks shoot 48% from 3.
Again, I'm capable of admitting when he plays well, yet you are incapable of admitting 13 points on 14 shots is bad because he didn't turn the ball over. But yup, I'm biased, checks out. You keep trudging along man, I'm done debating someone incapable of being remotely objective.