Nothin but Nets

[GeorgeMarcus]

.

I'm not replying to the 8 separate posts you quoted me in because that's ridiculous. But from the skimming I did you're still not getting it. For starters, I didn't use +/-. On/off and +/- are not the same. 2nd I never said anything about RHJ other than specifying the amount of minutes he played, which was significant. You're just not getting it so I'm bowing out. This is ridiculous

Smart... continuing to speak out of such ignorance on a team you admit barely watching last year making off the wall statements like Harris is avg and not the biggest piece to the nets offensive machine or that RHJ, Napier, Graham, dudley had some huge hand in the nets success will just continue to dig the hole you dug yourself into.

1) raw on/off with no context is useless
2) the nets 3rd stringers who had good on/off did so in low leverage minutes
3) RHJ was a complete non factor for the nets, or more accuraltely a negative one.
4) Joe harris was the nets most important player ourside russell

the nets imrpoved their bench and PG

Raw on/off has plenty of meaning, but more importantly stop putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned Graham once, or anything about the roles of RHJ or Napier. You are literally making up things that I say and arguing against them. I feel like I'm living in the twilight zone.

[kamaze]

Typical Nets fan response. Avoid the question and run from it.

Some Net fans keep pointing to their 42 win
record last season. But it's only +1 better then both the Magic & Pistons record of last season. Yet you see it over and over again in this topic.

But when asked if they really believe, that they would make the playoffs in the WC? They again run from the question.

Step up and have some balls, answer the question.

We all know the answer and so do You.

Ok back to your Knick insults and avoiding the hard questions. By the way the forum not stupid, they understand your running from the question.

Not just one Net fan, but THREE have quoted me and refuse to answer.

What is the question and who is running from what?

Would the Nets make the playoffs in the West?
Who cares???
They play in the East.

Can we ask semi relevant questions?
Like, what if every Net player died would they still finish ahead of the Knicks?
Probably.

I will answer it for you, no you would not.

This team would not even come close to being a playoff contender in the WC.

In the WC you be on the outside looking in. Your team would be considered a easy game. Stars would rest Vs your team.

Your still no better then either the Pistons or the Magic. Heck all three of you, will be with in 3 wins of each other.

This is called a reality check...

Shouldn't you be more concerned about your team making the playoffs this year? Well you can always watch this team in the post season!

It's funny all you can come up with is an alternate scenerio where a team in Brooklyn is somehow in the west.
Try not to be too mad the Nets are the talk right now.

[kamaze]

They were a 6 seed last year. Honestly 42 wins isn't a good record in the east the team just excelled better than everyone expected so fans are excited, sports needs fanatics.

In the west they wouldn't be as good but they're not so what's the point?

This year without Durant I expect Brooklyn to be about a 5th or 6 seed.

I think the Nets will have a top 4 seed easy.

With so many new pieces and injuries (the team holds out players to keep them fresh) plus the team has to gel I'm saying 6th without Durant.

[kamaze]

THEY"RE NOT IN THE WEST I'd like to see them get to the 2nd round but that's bc I'm a Nets fan haha. Either way it'll be fun to watch.

Of course they are not in the WC.

That does not change the question of if they where?

But hey we all know the answer...

Vegas has nets at 48 wins this year. i think that would get them in the playoffs in the west. i personally have them at 52 wins, with relative health (65 games from Kytrie, 55 from levert, 70 from harris)

Without Durant? I don't know Prok I'm betting low with room for improvement.

[DarkXaero]

Since OP is such a big fan of the "net rating" stat, maybe he should take a look at Kyrie's with the Celtics this past season.

[GeorgeMarcus]

I've addressed that several times and no one has replied to my take on that. Tell me why the Nets can't replace two salary dumps (Carroll, Dudley) and do this year what they have with declining vets and unwanted scrubs (Dinwiddie, Harris) the last few years?

How does that affect whether or not your starters were above or below average last year?

The bench has and will be a strength under Marks and Atkinson. 9 or 10 guys will play 20-30 minutes. Our bench will win us games like last year. We do you think these bench players are irreplaceable?

That doesn't answer my question. We are specifically talking about the starting unit last year and whether or not it was above average. So does that mean you agree with my assessment that they weren't?

Your bowing out of your own bait/troll thread? Hilarious.

I presented what I and others believe to be significant data, and did so in good faith. If you think it's a bait/troll thread then report me or give me a strike or whatever. I'm really disappointed that you, a poster who I've respected, has taken this approach. I bet if you reread the thread and my responses you would have a very different opinion, or at least wouldn't be fighting against straw man arguments that I never made.

[Trader_Joe]

How does that affect whether or not your starters were above or below average last year?

The bench has and will be a strength under Marks and Atkinson. 9 or 10 guys will play 20-30 minutes. Our bench will win us games like last year. We do you think these bench players are irreplaceable?

That doesn't answer my question. We are specifically talking about the starting unit last year and whether or not it was above average. So does that mean you agree with my assessment that they weren't?

Your bowing out of your own bait/troll thread? Hilarious.

I presented what I and others believe to be significant data, and did so in good faith. If you think it's a bait/troll thread then report me or give me a strike or whatever. I'm really disappointed that you, a poster who I've respected, has taken this approach. I bet if you reread the thread and my responses you would have a very different opinion, or at least wouldn't be fighting against straw man arguments that I never made.

You started off by saying you normally like to pick on Boston but was going to focus an another rival. And there is nothing to report. Just not a fan of agenda driven threads.

I don't care about designations of starters or bench. The line ups have and will change. The only thing that matters is the end result. Do I think this team is better than last year's? Yes. There is a lot of youth already on the roster I expect to improve. And KA and Marks seem to know what they are doing in the draft and free agency.

[GeorgeMarcus]

The bench has and will be a strength under Marks and Atkinson. 9 or 10 guys will play 20-30 minutes. Our bench will win us games like last year. We do you think these bench players are irreplaceable?

That doesn't answer my question. We are specifically talking about the starting unit last year and whether or not it was above average. So does that mean you agree with my assessment that they weren't?

Your bowing out of your own bait/troll thread? Hilarious.

I presented what I and others believe to be significant data, and did so in good faith. If you think it's a bait/troll thread then report me or give me a strike or whatever. I'm really disappointed that you, a poster who I've respected, has taken this approach. I bet if you reread the thread and my responses you would have a very different opinion, or at least wouldn't be fighting against straw man arguments that I never made.

You started off by saying you normally like to pick on Boston but was going to focus an another rival. And there is nothing to report. Just not a fan of agenda driven threads.

I don't care about designations of starters or bench. The line ups have and will change. The only thing that matters is the end result. Do I think this team is better than last year's? Yes. There is a lot of youth already on the roster I expect to improve. And KA and Marks seem to know what they are doing in the draft and free agency.

You don't have to care about them but that's literally what we were talking about and what you interjected on. It's kind of bull **** that my arguments keep getting twisted this way when it's easy to look at the words I used in the context I used them. You're better than that; be better than that.

And yes I started the thread with 'normally I pick on Boston yada yada' which was mostly just tongue-in-cheek fun but I wasn't saying that suddenly the Nets are my #1 rival... I was owning the fact that the thread presents negative information about a team, and getting ahead of the notion that I had some kind of agenda behind it. I don't. I've never hated on the Nets in the past and was pretty cordial in the playoff series thread we had. But if you believe it's baiting/trolling then just report me and let the GB mods handle it.

[MrDollarBills]

Just another butt hurt Knicks fan.

Maybe you will actually get the # 1 pick next year.

yep, these dudes are hurting bad af right now. they can't stand what's happening. they try to convince themselves that RJ Barrett and their 10 PFs they signed while dumpster diving in free agency will yield fruit, but no one takes them seriously.

Typical Nets fan response. Avoid the question and run from it.

Some Net fans keep pointing to their 42 win
record last season. But it's only +1 better then both the Magic & Pistons record of last season. Yet you see it over and over again in this topic.

But when asked if they really believe, that they would make the playoffs in the WC? They again run from the question.

Step up and have some balls, answer the question.

We all know the answer and so do You.

Ok back to your Knick insults and avoiding the hard questions. By the way the forum not stupid, they understand your running from the question.

Not just one Net fan, but THREE have quoted me and refuse to answer.

Bro, i'm not taking past hypothetical questions seriously, for what? to argue about what ifs? grow up.

[MrDollarBills]

missing 80% of nets games and not understanding how terrible a stat plus minus is leads to the ignorance you are spewing here.

i mean, it could not be more clear you know nothing about the nets to say harris is below avg or RHJ was a big part of the nets success, neither could be further from the truth

Basketball reference is a great site but when dudes use it to try and weave a narrative that they have very little understanding of they end up looking stupid.

Context always matters with the numbers. Like you can look at Russell's high usage rate and FGAs and try to say that he was a ball domineering chucker just based off of that when in reality he was the best playmaker on the team and ran the offense better than anyone else.

I only watched the 76ers when they were on national television and in the playoffs. I couldn't fathom sitting here and dictating to Sixers fans the ins and outs of their team just by using basketball reference as a tool. It would be an unbelievably ignorant thing to do, yet here we are being lectured about the Nets roster by a dude that watched "20 games", if that's even true. OP thought this thread would be cute but all it did was expose his own ignorance about the Nets and frankly, basketball statistics in general. Embarrassing.

Your ignorance is on full display. Even the most basic understanding of the stats presented would stop you from posting the things you're posting. Your idea about posting in the Nets forum would have no bearing on the numbers themselves. This isn't the kind of thing where "oh because we saw the games we can override the stark reality of what the numbers tell us". You can't. It just doesn't work that way. I'm sorry. Nothing else to be said though and no way am I going around in a circle again.

yeah yeah. watch a game once in awhile, maybe you'll know what you're talking about after seeing things with your own eyes instead of being **** ing ignorant as hell.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Basketball reference is a great site but when dudes use it to try and weave a narrative that they have very little understanding of they end up looking stupid.

Context always matters with the numbers. Like you can look at Russell's high usage rate and FGAs and try to say that he was a ball domineering chucker just based off of that when in reality he was the best playmaker on the team and ran the offense better than anyone else.

I only watched the 76ers when they were on national television and in the playoffs. I couldn't fathom sitting here and dictating to Sixers fans the ins and outs of their team just by using basketball reference as a tool. It would be an unbelievably ignorant thing to do, yet here we are being lectured about the Nets roster by a dude that watched "20 games", if that's even true. OP thought this thread would be cute but all it did was expose his own ignorance about the Nets and frankly, basketball statistics in general. Embarrassing.

Your ignorance is on full display. Even the most basic understanding of the stats presented would stop you from posting the things you're posting. Your idea about posting in the Nets forum would have no bearing on the numbers themselves. This isn't the kind of thing where "oh because we saw the games we can override the stark reality of what the numbers tell us". You can't. It just doesn't work that way. I'm sorry. Nothing else to be said though and no way am I going around in a circle again.

yeah yeah. watch a game once in awhile, maybe you'll know what you're talking about after seeing things with your own eyes instead of being **** ing ignorant as hell.

I talk to Sixers fans who watch every game that thought Covington was garbage, Redick was a fringe All-Star, etc. Yes there are obvious benefits to watching the games but in general people overrate the eye test by quite a bit. The numbers provide context to the games and the games provide context to the numbers. I really don't think 20 is that bad of a sample size anyway, especially when I've watched most of these players far longer than that.

[Prokorov]

missing 80% of nets games and not understanding how terrible a stat plus minus is leads to the ignorance you are spewing here.

i mean, it could not be more clear you know nothing about the nets to say harris is below avg or RHJ was a big part of the nets success, neither could be further from the truth

Basketball reference is a great site but when dudes use it to try and weave a narrative that they have very little understanding of they end up looking stupid.

Context always matters with the numbers. Like you can look at Russell's high usage rate and FGAs and try to say that he was a ball domineering chucker just based off of that when in reality he was the best playmaker on the team and ran the offense better than anyone else.

I only watched the 76ers when they were on national television and in the playoffs. I couldn't fathom sitting here and dictating to Sixers fans the ins and outs of their team just by using basketball reference as a tool. It would be an unbelievably ignorant thing to do, yet here we are being lectured about the Nets roster by a dude that watched "20 games", if that's even true. OP thought this thread would be cute but all it did was expose his own ignorance about the Nets and frankly, basketball statistics in general. Embarrassing.

Your ignorance is on full display. Even the most basic understanding of the stats presented would stop you from posting the things you're posting. Your idea about posting in the Nets forum would have no bearing on the numbers themselves. This isn't the kind of thing where "oh because we saw the games we can override the stark reality of what the numbers tell us". You can't. It just doesn't work that way. I'm sorry. Nothing else to be said though and no way am I going around in a circle again.

your "numbers" are trash. raw on/off with no context, depth or supporting facts.

we've already shown why on/off is a terrible stat, especially on its own. but hey i guess tobias harris should be cut and the raps will fall apart without monroe bexause.... on/off

[Prokorov]

I'm not replying to the 8 separate posts you quoted me in because that's ridiculous. But from the skimming I did you're still not getting it. For starters, I didn't use +/-. On/off and +/- are not the same. 2nd I never said anything about RHJ other than specifying the amount of minutes he played, which was significant. You're just not getting it so I'm bowing out. This is ridiculous

Smart... continuing to speak out of such ignorance on a team you admit barely watching last year making off the wall statements like Harris is avg and not the biggest piece to the nets offensive machine or that RHJ, Napier, Graham, dudley had some huge hand in the nets success will just continue to dig the hole you dug yourself into.

1) raw on/off with no context is useless
2) the nets 3rd stringers who had good on/off did so in low leverage minutes
3) RHJ was a complete non factor for the nets, or more accuraltely a negative one.
4) Joe harris was the nets most important player ourside russell

the nets imrpoved their bench and PG

Raw on/off has plenty of meaning, but more importantly stop putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned Graham once, or anything about the roles of RHJ or Napier. You are literally making up things that I say and arguing against them. I feel like I'm living in the twilight zone.

your first post list those guys as positive players lost with positive on/off and how that will be a loss to the team. only makes 0 sense if you know anything about the nets those guys were 3rd string

[Prokorov]

Of course they are not in the WC.

That does not change the question of if they where?

But hey we all know the answer...

Vegas has nets at 48 wins this year. i think that would get them in the playoffs in the west. i personally have them at 52 wins, with relative health (65 games from Kytrie, 55 from levert, 70 from harris)

Without Durant? I don't know Prok I'm betting low with room for improvement.

well you are consistently wrong so what you bet is irrelevant

[Prokorov]

Your ignorance is on full display. Even the most basic understanding of the stats presented would stop you from posting the things you're posting. Your idea about posting in the Nets forum would have no bearing on the numbers themselves. This isn't the kind of thing where "oh because we saw the games we can override the stark reality of what the numbers tell us". You can't. It just doesn't work that way. I'm sorry. Nothing else to be said though and no way am I going around in a circle again.

yeah yeah. watch a game once in awhile, maybe you'll know what you're talking about after seeing things with your own eyes instead of being **** ing ignorant as hell.

I talk to Sixers fans who watch every game that thought Covington was garbage, Redick was a fringe All-Star, etc. Yes there are obvious benefits to watching the games but in general people overrate the eye test by quite a bit. The numbers provide context to the games and the games provide context to the numbers. I really don't think 20 is that bad of a sample size anyway, especially when I've watched most of these players far longer than that.

its not jsut the eye test. we already showed you, statisitcally, the massive impact joe harris had on both the offense and on winning last year. but you ignored it

you refuse to lsiten to stats or the eye ball test and talk out your rear about a team you admit to having barely watched

[GeorgeMarcus]

Basketball reference is a great site but when dudes use it to try and weave a narrative that they have very little understanding of they end up looking stupid.

Context always matters with the numbers. Like you can look at Russell's high usage rate and FGAs and try to say that he was a ball domineering chucker just based off of that when in reality he was the best playmaker on the team and ran the offense better than anyone else.

I only watched the 76ers when they were on national television and in the playoffs. I couldn't fathom sitting here and dictating to Sixers fans the ins and outs of their team just by using basketball reference as a tool. It would be an unbelievably ignorant thing to do, yet here we are being lectured about the Nets roster by a dude that watched "20 games", if that's even true. OP thought this thread would be cute but all it did was expose his own ignorance about the Nets and frankly, basketball statistics in general. Embarrassing.

Your ignorance is on full display. Even the most basic understanding of the stats presented would stop you from posting the things you're posting. Your idea about posting in the Nets forum would have no bearing on the numbers themselves. This isn't the kind of thing where "oh because we saw the games we can override the stark reality of what the numbers tell us". You can't. It just doesn't work that way. I'm sorry. Nothing else to be said though and no way am I going around in a circle again.

your "numbers" are trash. raw on/off with no context, depth or supporting facts.

we've already shown why on/off is a terrible stat, especially on its own. but hey i guess tobias harris should be cut and the raps will fall apart without monroe bexause.... on/off

its not jsut the eye test. we already showed you, statisitcally, the massive impact joe harris had on both the offense and on winning last year. but you ignored it

you refuse to lsiten to stats or the eye ball test and talk out your rear about a team you admit to having barely watched

Uh nope you didn't "prove" any of those things. You're completely misunderstanding how I'm using on/off, and the fact that you referenced a 52 min sample size for Monroe tells me everything I need to know On/off is not a ranking of how good players are- not even close. On/off IS however the best stat for understanding what drives team success or lack thereof. It's that simple. Of course Tobias' on/off won't look as good when his minutes are being staggered against 3 players who are better than him. Whereas Joe Harris is being outshined by the likes of DeMarre Carroll and Jared Dudley. Yes the "starters vs bench" defense holds some weight, but that takes us back to my point that the Nets starting lineup was below average. There's really no rational argument you cane make against that conclusion. I'm sorry if it's difficult to digest for you.

[MrDollarBills]

Your ignorance is on full display. Even the most basic understanding of the stats presented would stop you from posting the things you're posting. Your idea about posting in the Nets forum would have no bearing on the numbers themselves. This isn't the kind of thing where "oh because we saw the games we can override the stark reality of what the numbers tell us". You can't. It just doesn't work that way. I'm sorry. Nothing else to be said though and no way am I going around in a circle again.

your "numbers" are trash. raw on/off with no context, depth or supporting facts.

we've already shown why on/off is a terrible stat, especially on its own. but hey i guess tobias harris should be cut and the raps will fall apart without monroe bexause.... on/off

its not jsut the eye test. we already showed you, statisitcally, the massive impact joe harris had on both the offense and on winning last year. but you ignored it

you refuse to lsiten to stats or the eye ball test and talk out your rear about a team you admit to having barely watched

Uh nope you didn't "prove" any of those things. You're completely misunderstanding how I'm using on/off, and the fact that you referenced a 52 min sample size for Monroe tells me everything I need to know On/off is not a ranking of how good players are- not even close. On/off IS however the best stat for understanding what drives team success or lack thereof. It's that simple. Of course Tobias' on/off won't look as good when his minutes are being staggered against 3 players who are better than him. Whereas Joe Harris is being outshined by the likes of DeMarre Carroll and Jared Dudley. Yes the "starters vs bench" defense holds some weight, but that takes us back to my point that the Nets starting lineup was below average. There's really no rational argument you cane make against that conclusion. I'm sorry if it's difficult to digest for you.

Joe Harris was not being outshined by Demarre Carroll and Jared Dudley dude, WTF are you talking about? are you insane? You are either trolling, or you are unbelievably uninformed. Most likely a mix of both since you started this troll thread with an agenda to begin with. But what the hell are you talking about?? Joe Harris was one of the league's best shooters and he was 5th overall in the league in true shooting percentage, this coming from a 3 point specialist wing player who started all 76 games he played in, his TS% is better than Curry and Durant's. His clutch shooting and ability to finish at the rim off of drives were a huge reason why the Nets were even in games that they had no business being in. At this point, I don't think you have watched even 20 games like you claim, because if you did you wouldn't say something so ridiculously stupid. Harris posted career highs in every category across the board this past season FFS. You are making a fool out of yourself with the way that you keep doubling down. Completely and utterly **** ing ignorant is the only thing that I can describe this god awful display coming from you as. And a goddamn liar to boot, Mr. "I watched 20 games so I know what I'm talking about". GTFOH !!!

[GeorgeMarcus]

your "numbers" are trash. raw on/off with no context, depth or supporting facts.

we've already shown why on/off is a terrible stat, especially on its own. but hey i guess tobias harris should be cut and the raps will fall apart without monroe bexause.... on/off

its not jsut the eye test. we already showed you, statisitcally, the massive impact joe harris had on both the offense and on winning last year. but you ignored it

you refuse to lsiten to stats or the eye ball test and talk out your rear about a team you admit to having barely watched

Uh nope you didn't "prove" any of those things. You're completely misunderstanding how I'm using on/off, and the fact that you referenced a 52 min sample size for Monroe tells me everything I need to know On/off is not a ranking of how good players are- not even close. On/off IS however the best stat for understanding what drives team success or lack thereof. It's that simple. Of course Tobias' on/off won't look as good when his minutes are being staggered against 3 players who are better than him. Whereas Joe Harris is being outshined by the likes of DeMarre Carroll and Jared Dudley. Yes the "starters vs bench" defense holds some weight, but that takes us back to my point that the Nets starting lineup was below average. There's really no rational argument you cane make against that conclusion. I'm sorry if it's difficult to digest for you.

Joe Harris was not being outshined by Demarre Carroll and Jared Dudley dude, WTF are you talking about? are you insane? You are either trolling, or you are unbelievably uninformed. Most likely a mix of both since you started this troll thread with an agenda to begin with. But what the hell are you talking about?? Joe Harris was one of the league's best shooters and he was 5th overall in the league in true shooting percentage, this coming from a 3 point specialist wing player who started all 76 games he played in, his TS% is better than Curry and Durant's. His clutch shooting and ability to finish at the rim off of drives were a huge reason why the Nets were even in games that they had no business being in. At this point, I don't think you have watched even 20 games like you claim, because if you did you wouldn't say something so ridiculously stupid. Harris posted career highs in every category across the board this past season FFS. You are making a fool out of yourself with the way that you keep doubling down. Completely and utterly **** ing ignorant is the only thing that I can describe this god awful display coming from you as. And a goddamn liar to boot, Mr. "I watched 20 games so I know what I'm talking about". GTFOH !!!

Dude. Outshined in on/off. What we've been talking about this whole time. Try to keep up...

Like, why don't you capitalize the sentence directly before it for context? Yeesh. FFS is right.

[MrDollarBills]

Uh nope you didn't "prove" any of those things. You're completely misunderstanding how I'm using on/off, and the fact that you referenced a 52 min sample size for Monroe tells me everything I need to know On/off is not a ranking of how good players are- not even close. On/off IS however the best stat for understanding what drives team success or lack thereof. It's that simple. Of course Tobias' on/off won't look as good when his minutes are being staggered against 3 players who are better than him. Whereas Joe Harris is being outshined by the likes of DeMarre Carroll and Jared Dudley. Yes the "starters vs bench" defense holds some weight, but that takes us back to my point that the Nets starting lineup was below average. There's really no rational argument you cane make against that conclusion. I'm sorry if it's difficult to digest for you.

Joe Harris was not being outshined by Demarre Carroll and Jared Dudley dude, WTF are you talking about? are you insane? You are either trolling, or you are unbelievably uninformed. Most likely a mix of both since you started this troll thread with an agenda to begin with. But what the hell are you talking about?? Joe Harris was one of the league's best shooters and he was 5th overall in the league in true shooting percentage, this coming from a 3 point specialist wing player who started all 76 games he played in, his TS% is better than Curry and Durant's. His clutch shooting and ability to finish at the rim off of drives were a huge reason why the Nets were even in games that they had no business being in. At this point, I don't think you have watched even 20 games like you claim, because if you did you wouldn't say something so ridiculously stupid. Harris posted career highs in every category across the board this past season FFS. You are making a fool out of yourself with the way that you keep doubling down. Completely and utterly **** ing ignorant is the only thing that I can describe this god awful display coming from you as. And a goddamn liar to boot, Mr. "I watched 20 games so I know what I'm talking about". GTFOH !!!

Dude. Outshined in on/off. What we've been talking about this whole time. Try to keep up...

Like, why don't you capitalize the sentence directly before it for context? Yeesh. FFS is right.

Okay, outshined in on/off, sure lets move the goal posts because you've made an ass out of yourself. Which means nothing in the bigger scheme of things because Harris was on the floor knocking down clutch shots and converting lay ups off of dribble drives in the lanes opened up by his shooting ability and catch and cuts that were actually keeping the Nets in games, whereas the two players who you say "outshined him" due to on/off did none of that for the most part. Your whole argument of trying to paint the players who were in and out of the rotation for the Nets, or the guys that barely played at all, being better than the Nets holdovers from last season is just blowing up in your face.

And btw, the whole "everyone else doesn't get it but me" shtick doesn't work, if you have to frame your argument in that manner against everyone who challenges your opinion most likely you need to reevaluate. but keep trying though.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Joe Harris was not being outshined by Demarre Carroll and Jared Dudley dude, WTF are you talking about? are you insane? You are either trolling, or you are unbelievably uninformed. Most likely a mix of both since you started this troll thread with an agenda to begin with. But what the hell are you talking about?? Joe Harris was one of the league's best shooters and he was 5th overall in the league in true shooting percentage, this coming from a 3 point specialist wing player who started all 76 games he played in, his TS% is better than Curry and Durant's. His clutch shooting and ability to finish at the rim off of drives were a huge reason why the Nets were even in games that they had no business being in. At this point, I don't think you have watched even 20 games like you claim, because if you did you wouldn't say something so ridiculously stupid. Harris posted career highs in every category across the board this past season FFS. You are making a fool out of yourself with the way that you keep doubling down. Completely and utterly **** ing ignorant is the only thing that I can describe this god awful display coming from you as. And a goddamn liar to boot, Mr. "I watched 20 games so I know what I'm talking about". GTFOH !!!

Dude. Outshined in on/off. What we've been talking about this whole time. Try to keep up...

Like, why don't you capitalize the sentence directly before it for context? Yeesh. FFS is right.

Okay, outshined in on/off, sure lets move the goal posts because you've made an ass out of yourself. Which means nothing in the bigger scheme of things because Harris was on the floor knocking down clutch shots and converting lay ups off of dribble drives in the lanes opened up by his shooting ability and catch and cuts that were actually keeping the Nets in games, whereas the two players who you say "outshined him" due to on/off did none of that for the most part. Your whole argument of trying to paint the players who were in and out of the rotation for the Nets, or the guys that barely played at all, being better than the Nets holdovers from last season is just blowing up in your face.

And btw, the whole "everyone else doesn't get it but me" shtick doesn't work, if you have to frame your argument in that manner against everyone who challenges your opinion most likely you need to reevaluate. but keep trying though.

Everyone gets it. You're in the minority and you're too blind and/or emotional to see it. You're making a fool out of yourself by talking about "moving goal posts" when the text is right in front of us for all to see. I'm making a rational argument while you're resorting to name calling like a 3rd grader. Now I'm really bowing out of this one. The last word is yours, use it wisely.