Rookie Discussion [19/20] [part I]

[clyde21]

Terence Davis going off right now

[PistolPeteJR]

Terence Davis going off right now

Legit one of my fav Raps this year behind OG and FVV.

[BAMAFREAK]

I'll say it again MP Jr is ROY for me.

Super exciting for DEN how this might change everything...if he stays healthy, move over Luka/KP, the future could be MP Jr/Joker/Murray's.

He’s got a lot of work to do to even approach the race.

[Feel_the_Heat15]

Chicago drafted him in the 2nd round. He's outplaying the spot CHICAGO drafted him. He is playing well for CHICAGO.

Nowhere did Clyde say "Daniel Gafford is playing elite defense". He said "(he) is playing well for Chicago".

Just because you interpret Daniel Gaffords advanced stats as elite dosen't mean Clyde said Gafford was playing elite. Clyde said "(he) is playing well", and listed Gaffords advanced stats.

Do you think Daniel Gafford is not playing well?

Did I say that he wasn't outplaying the spot that Chicago drafted him at? No. Also, saying that "He's playing well for Chicago generally wouldn't mean that he's playing well relative to his team's success. That'd be like saying that Reddish is playing well for the Hawks. You're grasping at straws. Also, you're being hypocritical. You're going after me for interpreting Clyde's words a certain way yet here you are doing the same. Even though he never said that Gafford was an elite defender, I can infer from context clues that he believes that Gafford is an elite shot blocker. If he didn't, why would he posts his block numbers? For no reason at all? Also, yes I believe that Gafford is playing well(for a rookie) but I never said otherwise.

yes, he's playing really well, I'm posting about a **** 2nd round rookie in the rookie thread. i didn't post about him in the MVP thread.

that context is already given.

are you done here? because you r polluting this thread with your nonsense.

Nonsense? Do you even remember what this argument's about? You posted numbers that made Gafford look like a better player than he really is. I simply added some additional information so that people aren't mislead. What if I praised RJ by posting that he's averaging 13.8 PPG? It's a lot less impressive when you realize where his TS% is at. You're basically trying to change what you originally said.

I think everyone understood the context except for you.

Yes, because everyone knew that Gafford was averaging 5 personal fouls per 36 and understood that block numbers are misleading when you foul so much .

[clyde21]

me: Gaffords playing really well for Chicago and outplaying his draft spot

you: BUT HE HAS NO RANGE AND FOULS A LOT

cool **** story bro maybe you should write a book about it.

[Roddy B for 3]

Chicago drafted him in the 2nd round. He's outplaying the spot CHICAGO drafted him. He is playing well for CHICAGO.

Nowhere did Clyde say "Daniel Gafford is playing elite defense". He said "(he) is playing well for Chicago".

Just because you interpret Daniel Gaffords advanced stats as elite dosen't mean Clyde said Gafford was playing elite. Clyde said "(he) is playing well", and listed Gaffords advanced stats.

Do you think Daniel Gafford is not playing well?

Did I say that he wasn't outplaying the spot that Chicago drafted him at? No. Also, saying that "He's playing well for Chicago generally wouldn't mean that he's playing well relative to his team's success. That'd be like saying that Reddish is playing well for the Hawks. You're grasping at straws. Also, you're being hypocritical. You're going after me for interpreting Clyde's words a certain way yet here you are doing the same. Even though he never said that Gafford was an elite defender, I can infer from context clues that he believes that Gafford is an elite shot blocker. If he didn't, why would he posts his block numbers? For no reason at all? Also, yes I believe that Gafford is playing well(for a rookie) but I never said otherwise.

yes, he's playing really well, I'm posting about a **** 2nd round rookie in the rookie thread. i didn't post about him in the MVP thread.

that context is already given.

are you done here? because you r polluting this thread with your nonsense.

Nonsense? Do you even remember what this argument's about? You posted numbers that made Gafford look like a better player than he really is. I simply added some additional information so that people aren't mislead. What if I praised RJ by posting that he's averaging 13.8 PPG? It's a lot less impressive when you realize where his TS% is at. You're basically trying to change what you originally said.

I think everyone understood the context except for you.

Yes, because everyone knew that Gafford was averaging 5 personal fouls per 36 and understood that block numbers are misleading when you foul so much .

Clyde said Gafford is playing well and showed stats to back that statement up.

You "infered" Clyde was calling Gafford elite.

But, he didn't do that.

He said Gafford is playing "well" and brought stats to back it up.

Now you admit Gafford I playing well. You could've just said "yes he is ago playing well, but he also is fouling alot amd he has t been as k.pactful as his numbers suggest.

You didn't do that. You put words in Clyde's mouth.

[Feel_the_Heat15]

me: Gaffords playing really well for Chicago and outplaying his draft spot

you: BUT HE HAS NO RANGE AND FOULS A LOT

cool **** story bro maybe you should write a book about it.

Yeah, lets pretend that Gafford having no range and fouling a lot is irrelevant to you saying that he's playing well.

[Mbrahv0528]

me: Gaffords playing really well for Chicago and outplaying his draft spot

you: BUT HE HAS NO RANGE AND FOULS A LOT

cool **** story bro maybe you should write a book about it.

Yeah, lets pretend that Gafford having no range and fouling a lot is irrelevant to you saying that he's playing well.

But, it is irrelevant.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

[clyde21]

me: Gaffords playing really well for Chicago and outplaying his draft spot

you: BUT HE HAS NO RANGE AND FOULS A LOT

cool **** story bro maybe you should write a book about it.

Yeah, lets pretend that Gafford having no range and fouling a lot is irrelevant to you saying that he's playing well.

it's completely irrelevant, even if we agree to above, it has nothing to do with my point. he's still playing really well and is still outplaying his draft slot.

and again, if the dude had range he wouldn't have been a 2nd round pick now would he?

you've done nothing the last few pages except troll, sidetrack and try to **** on Gafford for whatever reason. go away.

[Duke4life831]

Really good games by the Pels rookies tonight. Started out pretty rough for Hayes to start, but he really settled in and was damn good and finished with 14/12 and 4 blocks. NAW with 11/4/6 in just 20 minutes of work.

The issue with NAW at the moment is he is such a ball dominant player. He really needs to pound the rock to be successful out there. So when he and his PnR game is on, he looks damn good. But when he is off, it can be really hard to watch. But he looked really good the last 2 games.

[CalL]

MPJ isn't considered a rookie? If not, then the top 3 right now for me would be Morant + 2 out of Hachimura, Nunn, Herro, Barrett and Doumbouya.

[Feel_the_Heat15]

me: Gaffords playing really well for Chicago and outplaying his draft spot

you: BUT HE HAS NO RANGE AND FOULS A LOT

cool **** story bro maybe you should write a book about it.

Yeah, lets pretend that Gafford having no range and fouling a lot is irrelevant to you saying that he's playing well.

it's completely irrelevant, even if we agree to above, it has nothing to do with my point. he's still playing really well and is still outplaying his draft slot.

and again, if the dude had range he wouldn't have been a 2nd round pick now would he?

you've done nothing the last few pages except troll, sidetrack and try to **** on Gafford for whatever reason. go away.

It is completely relevant. The fact that you're denying that it is shows that you just refuse to admit that you're wrong even though you obviously are. How are fouls irrelevant to a player's ability to block shots? That's like saying TS% is irrelevant to a discussion about how many points a player puts up per game.

[Feel_the_Heat15]

Chicago drafted him in the 2nd round. He's outplaying the spot CHICAGO drafted him. He is playing well for CHICAGO.

Nowhere did Clyde say "Daniel Gafford is playing elite defense". He said "(he) is playing well for Chicago".

Just because you interpret Daniel Gaffords advanced stats as elite dosen't mean Clyde said Gafford was playing elite. Clyde said "(he) is playing well", and listed Gaffords advanced stats.

Do you think Daniel Gafford is not playing well?

Did I say that he wasn't outplaying the spot that Chicago drafted him at? No. Also, saying that "He's playing well for Chicago generally wouldn't mean that he's playing well relative to his team's success. That'd be like saying that Reddish is playing well for the Hawks. You're grasping at straws. Also, you're being hypocritical. You're going after me for interpreting Clyde's words a certain way yet here you are doing the same. Even though he never said that Gafford was an elite defender, I can infer from context clues that he believes that Gafford is an elite shot blocker. If he didn't, why would he posts his block numbers? For no reason at all? Also, yes I believe that Gafford is playing well(for a rookie) but I never said otherwise.

yes, he's playing really well, I'm posting about a **** 2nd round rookie in the rookie thread. i didn't post about him in the MVP thread.

that context is already given.

are you done here? because you r polluting this thread with your nonsense.

Nonsense? Do you even remember what this argument's about? You posted numbers that made Gafford look like a better player than he really is. I simply added some additional information so that people aren't mislead. What if I praised RJ by posting that he's averaging 13.8 PPG? It's a lot less impressive when you realize where his TS% is at. You're basically trying to change what you originally said.

I think everyone understood the context except for you.

Yes, because everyone knew that Gafford was averaging 5 personal fouls per 36 and understood that block numbers are misleading when you foul so much .

Clyde said Gafford is playing well and showed stats to back that statement up.

You "infered" Clyde was calling Gafford elite.

But, he didn't do that.

He said Gafford is playing "well" and brought stats to back it up.

Now you admit Gafford I playing well. You could've just said "yes he is ago playing well, but he also is fouling alot amd he has t been as k.pactful as his numbers suggest.

You didn't do that. You put words in Clyde's mouth.

Where did I say that Clyde said that Gafford was an elite player? Also, I said that he was "playing well for a rookie". Look who's putting words in who's mouth. Why is it so hard for people to admit that they were wrong?

[Roddy B for 3]

I'm sure you do know. Blocks don't matter if you're fouling a lot and it's not hard to be an efficient player if your average shot attempt is a feet away from the rim. Also, pointing out the deficiencies of his game is related to you praising him.

i don't really care about deficiencies to his game when you're talking about a 2nd round rook that's outplaying his draft slot considerably. serves no point in this discussion at all other than you trying to rain down on Gafford for no reason.

and, again, foul trouble is common for young bigs, the good ones grow out of it. even JJJ is still having issues with it. Jaxson Hayes too, etc.

You gave out the impression that he was an elite defender...just because he's a rookie doesn't mean the bar should be lowered for him. I already went through this with Coby White.

[Feel_the_Heat15]

i don't really care about deficiencies to his game when you're talking about a 2nd round rook that's outplaying his draft slot considerably. serves no point in this discussion at all other than you trying to rain down on Gafford for no reason.

and, again, foul trouble is common for young bigs, the good ones grow out of it. even JJJ is still having issues with it. Jaxson Hayes too, etc.

You gave out the impression that he was an elite defender...just because he's a rookie doesn't mean the bar should be lowered for him. I already went through this with Coby White.

I'm pretty sure that calling a player an elite defender isn't the same as calling them an elite player.

[clyde21]

go away

[Roger Murdock]

I think we need to close this thread because if anyone says someone’s good or bad without thoroughly explaining every strength and weakness of that player Feel The Heat is going to get confused and won’t be able to tell if we are calling them the next Anthony Davis or Anthony Bennett

[Feel_the_Heat15]

I think we need to close this thread because if anyone says someone’s good or bad without thoroughly explaining every strength and weakness of that player Feel The Heat is going to get confused and won’t be able to tell if we are calling them the next Anthony Davis or Anthony Bennett

Because we evaluate players without factoring in their weaknesses ?

Andrew Wiggins is a great player. Don't factor in his defense or his mediocre shooting percentages.

[clyde21]

MPJ isn't considered a rookie? If not, then the top 3 right now for me would be Morant + 2 out of Hachimura, Nunn, Herro, Barrett and Doumbouya.

what about Clarke and PJ?

[Klomp]

Another night, another poster.

Read on Twitter